Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2010 with funding from University of Toronto
https://archive.org/details/theologicalwork01 john
THE
THEOLOGICAL WORKS
OF THE
BEY. JOHN JOHNSON, M.A,
VICAR OF CRANBROOK IN THE DIOCESE OF CANTERBURY.
VOLUME I.
OXFORD;
JOHN HENRY PARKER.
M DCCCXLVITI,
Ores Ye fet ae
eh. of Eng.
OXFORD: PRINTED ΒΥ 1, SHRIMPTON,
THE
UNBLOODY SACRIFICE,
AND eer A.B: UNVAILED and SUPPORTED, -
ἘΝ WHT Corr
Ϊ | |
The nature of the Eucharist is explained according to the sentiments of the Christian Church in the four first centuries;
PROVING,
That the Eucharist is a proper material Sacrifice, That it is both Eucharistic, and propitiatory,
That it is to be offered by proper officers,
That the Oblation is to be made on a proper Altar, That it is properly consumed by manducation :
To which is added,
A Proof, that what our Saviour speaks concerning eating His Flesh, and drinking His Blood, in the vith Chapter of St. John’s Gospel, is ἢ
meant of the Eucharist,
With a Prefatory Epistle to the Lord Bishop of Norwicu;
Animadversions on the Reverend Dr. Wise’s Book, which he calls The Christian Eucharist rightly stated :
And some reflections on a stitched book, entituled, 4n Answer to the exceptions made against the Lord Bishop of Ox¥ ORD’s'Charge.
Nil aded quod obduret mentes hominum, quam simplicitas Divinorum operum, i. e. Sacra- mentorum, gu@ in actu videtur; δ᾽ magnificentia, que in effectu repromittitur. Tertullian, De Baptismo, mox ab initio. Κρατοῦμεν τὴν OMOAOTIAN ἕως ἂν ζήσομεν [C@uev. Ed. Ben.] Origen. contra Celsum, Lib. 8.
By JOHN JOHNSON, M.A. Vicar of Cranbrook in the Diocese of Canterbury.
LONDON: Printed for Roperrt Knaptock, at the Bishop’s- Head, in St. Paul’s Church- Yard. MDCCXXIV.
ane
EDITOR’S PREFACE.
ConsIDERABLE delay has occurred in the publication of this Volume, from accidental circumstances. Owing to the difficulty of obtaining a copy of the Second Edition, (which came out in 1724, in the Author’s life-time, and which is now become extremely rare,) it was found necessary to begin working with the First Edition, (that of 1714;) and the Volume had been completely prepared for the press as early as July last, before a copy of the Second Edition was ob- tained; which, of course, involved a thorough examination de novo. For the loan of that copy, the Committee is in- debted to the courtesy of the Rey. C. L. Cornish, M.A. of Exeter College. All the passages, inserted by the Author in his Second Edition, have been distinguished in the pre- sent by being inclosed in brackets; only it must be ob- served, that where instances occur of single words brack- etted, they have been put in by the Editor on his own responsibility ; and he trusts that it will clearly appear from the context, that in the very few instances of their oc- currence such a course was necessary. There are several passages in the text of the First Edition, which the Author has entirely omitted in the Second ; these it has been thought advisable to retain in the present Edition in the shape of notes. The reader will thence have an opportunity of dis- criminating the shades of theological difference (if any such really exist,) to which Johnson’s mind was subject in a decade of years; and the Editor is thereby spared the invidious task of assuming their arbitration. A few sentences only have been entirely omitted, which the Author has withdrawn in his Second Edition, and wherein he had been betrayed, by the heat of controversy, into an undue asperity of expression.
It may be as well to remark, that wherever the word ‘ Sa- crifice’ is here employed to designate the mysterious oblation
vi EDITOR’S PREFACE.
in the Christian Eucharist, it is marked by a capital initial ; whereas the ‘sacrifices’ of the Elder Dispensation, and their heathen counterfeits, are left in small letter. The same rule obtains with regard to ‘ Blood,’ when applied to the adora- ble and spiritual Mystery of our Saviour’s Presence; ‘ Bread and Wine,’ when they signify the Sacramental symbols; and generally all specific terms of the Catholic Ritual and Theo- logy are so marked. It might have been expected, that ac- cording to the usual custom, this work should have opened with a Memoir of the Author; but the bulk of the present Volume has necessarily precluded it. A biographical notice at considerable length has been prefixed to a posthumous Edition of his Sermons; which may on a future occasion be published. It will then be necessary to give some account of the various adversaries, with whom our Author broke a lance in the polemical lists; Dr. Hancock, Dr. Pelling, Dr. Whitby the Commentator, Dr. Henry More of Cambridge (of Platonic celebrity,) Mr. Lewis of Margate, and Dr. Thomas Wise, are among the opponents to whom we are introduced in this Volume. It has been a subject of regret with the Editor, that he has been unable to verify the references to Dr. Wise’s pamphlet; and the urgency, with which this long-delayed, long-promised Volume has been called for, admitted not of further investigation. It is consoling, however, to reflect, that the omission is not of material importance to the eluci- dation of the important subject of the present work, it being simply a record of contemporary controversy ; and it may be allowed
kal ὑπὸ στέγῃ ὃ Πυκνᾶς ἀκούειν Ψεκάδος εὑδούσῃ φρενί.
In verifying the references to the works of the Fathers and other writers, the best Editions have been used by the Editor, without confining himself to those employed by the Author, as will be seen by the following List.
R. O. Jesus Coll. Feb. 19, 1847.
* [Sophocles apud Ciceronis Epp. ad Att., Lib. ii. Ep. 7. ]
Ambrosius, S. Paris. 1686.
Aquinas, S. Thomas, Summa Theolo- gica, Duaci, 1614.
Athanasius, S. Paris. 1698..
Athenagoras, Oxon. 1706.
Augustinus, S. Bened. 1679.
Barclay, Apology, 1736.
Barnabas, S. Hefele, 1842.
Basilius, S. Paris. 1721.
Bellarminus, De Missa, 1601.
Bennet, Rights of the Clergy, 1711.
Beveregii Synodicum, Oxon. 1672.
Beza, In Nov. Testamentum, Canta- brigie, 1642.
Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum, Galland. 1770.
——— Colon. 1618.
-«----.- Paris. 1624.
Bingham’s Works, London, 1840. Binius, 1636.
Calepine, Dictionarium, Lugd. 1681. Calvini Institutiones, Lugd. 1654. Harmonia Evang. Geneve,
1595. Canus, Melchior, Colon. Agripp. 1605. Catena PP. Grzcorum, Corderio. Chrysostomus, S. Joh. Savil. 1612. Clarke’s, Dr. Samuel, Works, 1738. Clemens Alexandrinus, S. Potter, Oxon. 1715. Clemens Romanus, S. Hefele, 1842. Codex Canonum Eccles. Africane, Justelli. Concilia, Labbe. et Cossart. 1728. Confessio Waldensium, Basil. 1568. Cowell’s Law-Interpreter, Cambridge, 1607. Cyprianus, S. Paris. 1726. Cyrillus Alexandrinus, S. Paris. 1638. Cyrillus Hierosolym. S. Paris. 1720. Ephrem Syrus, S. Rome, 1732. Epiphanius, S. Paris. 1622.
LIST OF EDITIONS EMPLOYED IN VERIFYING THE PRESENT VOLUME.
Eusebius, De Prezparatione Evang. Paris. 1628. —— De Demonstratione Evang. Paris. 1628. Hist. Eecles. Zimmerman,
1822.
Eustathius, Rome, 1551.
Fasciculus Rerum, Brown, Lond. 1690.
Fulgentius, S. Lugd. 1633. Gerhard, 16457.
Gregorius Magnus, S. Sacrament. Par. 1642. Gregorius 1778.
Gregorius Nyssenus, S. Paris. 1638.
Grotii Opera, Amstelodami, 1679.
Hakewell, Dr. Dissertation with Dr. Heylyn, 1641.
Hammond, On the New Testament, 1059.
Hancock, Dr. Patres Vindicati, 1709.
Heroldi Heresiologia, Basil. 1556.
Hieronymus, S. Paris. 1706.
Hilarius Pictaviensis, S. Paris. 1693.
Ignatius, S. Hefele, 1842.
Irenzus, S. Paris. 1710.
Isidorus Hispalensis, S. Colon. Agr. 1617.
Justin Martyr, S. Paris. 1742.
Larroque, Histoire d’Eucharistie, Am- sterdam, 1671.
Lightfoot, Synopsis Critic. Cant. 1674.
Maximus, Contra Marcionitas, Wet- sten. 1673.
Mede’s Works, 1664.
Melanchthon. Explic. in Mal. Wite- berg. 1601.
Optatus, S. Paris. 1679.
Origenes,’ Paris. 1733.
Outram, De Sacrificiis, 1677.
Pearson, Annotationes in D. Ignatium, Oxon. 1709.
Philo Judeus, Mangey, 1742.
Nazianzenus, 5. Paris.
Vill LIST OF EDITIONS REFERRED TO.
Plutarchus, Francofurti, 1599. Theodori Archiep. Cant. Peenitentiale, Socini Opera, 1656. Paris. 1677. Sozomenus, Valesio, Paris. 1668. Theophylactus, Lindsell. Londini, 1636. Spencer, De Legibus Hebreis, Can- Thuanus, London, 1733.
tab. 1685. Vitringa, Observationes Sacre, Frane- Surii Sanctorum Historie, Col. Agripp. quer, 1689.
1576—81. Voigtus, Gothofred. Thysiasteriologia Tertullianus, Paris. 1664. sive De Altaribus Veterum Chris- Theodoretus, Paris, 1642. tianorum, Hamburg. 1709.
A
PREFATORY EPISTLE
TO THE RIGHT REVEREND
THE LORD BISHOP OF NORWICH,
AFTERWARDS OF WINCHESTER.
My Lorp,
Wiru all the submission and deference that is due from a Priest to a Bishop, I crave leave to inscribe your name to these papers; not that I think your Lordship disposed to patronise them, but because you have been pleased to shew your inclination to be a judge in this dispute, to whom there- fore I, as an humble advocate, have thought fit to address myself.
And, my Lord, I have just reason to expect that you should not discountenance my plea, as you are one of that Right Reverend Order which has always been esteemed, till now of very late, to have had the guardianship of the Altar in an especial manner committed to it by Christ Jesus Himself.
“One Bishop, and one Altar,” has been looked upon as the distinguishing motto of the Apostolical Church ever since the time of St. Ignatius, and to contend pro Aris, ‘for the Altars,’ has ever been thought honourable in all men, but especially in those whose business it is continually to attend them.
Some may suggest to your Lordship, that several of our Bishops since the Reformation have declared against the doctrine for which I plead, but I am persuaded that this is all mistake. Our Protestant Bishops have indeed with good
JOHNSON. B
2 PREFATORY EPISTLE.
reason pronounced judgment against the Sacrifice of the Popish Mass, and we all unanimously and heartily concur m subscribing to their determinations in this particular ; but, my Lord, it is the Sacrifice of St. Cyprian, Irenzus, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, the Apostles, and Christ Jesus Himself, for which we now contend; that sacrifice which Archbishop Laud and his most learned and pious chaplain Mr. Mede asserted in the last age, and which no Bishop before your Lordship had ever disapproved. The only person of your venerable order who may seem to have shewed his dislike of it, was he whose name rather glares than shines in our English history, I mean Archbishop Williams, and yet it is well known that he rather opposed his rival and superior Archbishop Laud, than the Altar and Sacrifice itself. [ And indeed the Altar against which he particularly expressed his indignation and resentment, was literally a Popish Altar, on which the sacrifice of the Mass had formerly been offered, and which a private vicar had re-erected in his church*:] so that I must, till better informed, consider your Lordship as the first Christian Bishop that ever yet openly declared against that Sacrifice for which we now plead; but heavens forbid that you should finally persist in your hostility agaist so primitive and Divine an institution.
Some may think that your Lordship has already passed a definitive sentence against it, or that you are gone too far to retreat; but, my Lord, I have seen a very learned and upright temporal judge sittimg upon the bench, who upon the first opening of the cause has with some degree of vehe- mence espoused the plaintiff’s plea, and yet upon hearing the adverse counsel and evidence has finally pronounced sentence for the defendant. And, my Lord, that candour and impartiality, by which your Lordship stands distinguished in the opinion of those who pretend best to know you, give me reason to hope that you will upon a full hearing be convinced that Dr. Hancock (of whose learning and judgment you had entertained so favourable an opimion) has imperfectly and falsely represented the case now in dispute: and, my Lord, the whole learned world can look upon what you have hitherto said on this subject as no more than the propensities
a The words between brackets are not in the edition of 1724.
eee ee ργ,
PREFATORY EPISTLE. 3
of a judge to one side of a cause, before the witnesses have been thoroughly examined, and the arguments of each side laid in an equal balance; and all reasonable men will allow that it is very consistent with the integrity and ability of the greatest human judges to pass final sentence against that side which they themselves favoured during the trial. And, my Lord, it is the design of these papers to take off those false colours which our adversaries have endeavoured to lay upon their errors, and to state and clear the notions of the ancients upon this weighty subject according to the best light I had from Scripture, and the most early monuments of primitive antiquity.
Further, my Lord, the censure you was pleased to pass upon somewhat that I had said upon this subject in the Second Part of The Clergyman’s Vade Mecum”, gives me a right to say something in my own defence. I did indeed in the postscript to The Propitiatory Oblation, consider the most specious appearance of argument which your Lordship had urged against that passage mm the Vade so far as the doctrine itself was concerned, but I was not so solicitous for the reputation of that book or the author of it, as for what concerned the Oblation itself, and therefore deferred the vin- dication of them till some further opportunity should offer itself, as now it does.
And I choose to make my defence by way of Prefatory Epistle, because I desire to convince your Lordship and the world that I make a great distinction between you and those who pass under the name of adversaries in the following book ; for, my Lord, I abhor the thoughts of being an adver- sary toa Bishop. I thank God I was always bred under an awe and reverence of the Episcopal character, and I hope I shall never so far forget myself as to be guilty of any inso- lence or contempt toward the persons that are invested with it, whatever treatment I receive from any of that bench.
My conscience bears me witness that the book (I mean the Second Part of the Vade Mecum) which has fallen under your Lordship’s displeasure, was compiled from one end to the other with a sincere design of serving the Established Church, and especially the Bishops themselves, and all things
> Part II. first ed.
B 2
A PREFATORY EPISTLE.
that bore any relation to them, of which I esteemed the Altar and Sacrifice not the least; and he who when I pub- lished that book should have told me that one of those Bishops, and particularly your Lordship would be the first, and in effect the only man that would condemn it, I should have looked upon as a person that either did not understand your Lordship’s temper, or was disposed to misrepresent it ; for I could not believe that any of our English Bishops were for obliging enemies and giving up friends, a counsel which is believed to have undermined and shaken the royal throne and can never support the episcopal.
My Lord, I shall use a true English freedom throughout this whole book, and particularly this epistle, and therefore think necessary to bespeak your Lordship’s patience and good temper. For I am one that have always studied truth much more than complaisance, and I think it my duty in this case, which I take to be of great moment, not to suppress my sentiments. If I had not been fully persuaded of the justice of my cause, I would never have so heartily espoused it, and he who is in earnest convinced of any Divine truth, and of the great moment and consequence of it, cannot but think that he has a right to speak what he believes, and that those arguments which have determined his own judgment, will have the same power in determining the judgments of others when duly considered and applied. Your Lordship will give me leaye to speak with competent assurance of the truth of the doctrme for which I am now pleading, if I may be be- lieved when I do most solemnly declare that if I had had any the least doubts or mistrusts either of the certainty of the doctrine, or my own integrity and disinterested zeal for it without any sinister or indirect view, I would never have troubled the world with a new book upon this subject.
But there are several topics made use of by those that are adversaries of the Sacrifice, to inflame the minds of men against the thing itself and the assertors of it, which it will be very proper for me briefly to consider, and humbly to lay before your Lordship my thoughts upon every one of them. Whatever concerns the merits of the cause is, I hope, fully treated of in the following book; but there are objections which do not at all affect the cause itself, but the reputation
PREFATORY EPISTLE. 5
only of those who write for it, and these I have reserved for this place; and I will not omit any that I have hitherto met with, either in the books that have been written, or in the conversation I have had with others upon this subject.
1. The first and capital objection of this sort is, that the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is right down Popery; if by Sacrifice be meant a material proper Sacrifice, which is what I have asserted in this treatise. And this indeed is a very terrible objection if it were a true one. If any of us asserted the Sacri- fice of the Mass, I would readily grant that no reproaches were too hard, no censures too severe against them, who were guilty of attempting to introduce so abominable a corruption. But, my Lord, it is evident to any man that is not exceed- ingly prejudiced, that the Sacrifice of the Primitive Church, for which we plead, and that of the Church of Rome, are substantially and essentially distinct. The Sacrifice of the Primitive Church consists of bread and wine, consecrated into the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ by the secret operation of the Holy Spirit. The Sacrifice of the Church of Rome consists (if we may believe the Papists) of the very substantial Body and Blood of Christ, together with His human soul and Divine nature, or, in a word, of the one very true Christ, both God and man. And what necessarily follows from hence is, that the Sacrifice of the Primitive Church was thought to be effectual and prevalent, in virtue of the grand Personal Sacrifice, but the Sacrifice of the Church of Rome is affirmed to be the very same in substance that was made on the cross, and therefore of itself expiatory and satisfactory; and I am very sure that to all impartial inquirers this is a sufficient compurgation of the crime ob- jected against us.
I confess, my Lord, it is one thing for men to answer and confute any criminous objection laid against them, and it is another thing to free themselves from all suspicions of it. And it fares with us as it does with many other honest men, our own consciences acquit us, and we can abundantly refel all the arguments brought against us, but we cannot cure the jealous heads, or silence the reproachful tongues and pens of our adversaries; and whether this be our fault or theirs I submit to your Lordship’s judgment.
6 PREFATORY EPISTLE.
Popery has ever been the watchword of the enemies of the Church of England, whereby they have alarmed the people to the destruction of those that have stood in their way, and opposed their assaults upon the constitution; within these hundred years it was Popery with some, nay and is so to this day, to assert the co-operation of the will of man with the grace of God, or to contradict those notions of predestination or reprobation, which Mr. Calvi and his followers had made the fundamental article of religion. The Solifidians and Antinomians have produced as plausible allegations from some of the first reformers in behalf of their execrable opinions, as our adversaries can now pretend to brmg from the same writers against us. Episcopacy and Liturgy, and all those particular doctrines and practices by which the Church of England is happily distinguished from the several sorts of dissenters, are to this day cried out upon as rank Popery by the main body of those who separate from us; they have indeed been taught better manners by those who have of late had the management of them, than to beard or insult our prelates with this sort of rhetoric; but those of the clergy whose duty requires them frequently to converse with these dissenting brethren on the level, know full well the truth of what I say by daily experience. And sure we have no just reason to be concerned, that the very same artillery is now employed against us which was formerly made use of against the whole constitution of our Church, and especially the defenders of it. There is indeed one con- sideration that does very much sharpen the edge of this objection, which is, that it comes from the tongues or pens of those of our own communion. This is a demonstration that our adversaries do too much symbolise with the hot bigoted fanatics, and are learning their language and logic; and I must have leave to say, that this reproach does no more affect the assertors of the Sacrifice, than the assertors of Episcopacy and Liturgy ; and I have reason to expect that all impartial men should believe what I now say, till our opponents can produce a proof of a Bishop without an Altar, or a Liturgy without a proper Sacrifice, from the remains of genuine antiquity.
Therefore I am heartily sorry that my Lord Bishop of
PREFATORY EPISTLE. Ἶ
Oxford in his last year’s Charge®, should say of this among other doctrines, “that it savours too much of Popery.” By this his Lordship gives countenance to our adversaries in their most unmanly and unchristian revilings, and it is certain that by this means his Lordship has done more injury to his own reputation than to ours in the judgment of all discerning men; for persons of dignity cannot more degrade themselves, than by stooping down so low as to take up a vulgar reproach against any man, or body of men, especially when this reproach must at last fall, not only upon Arch- bishop Laud, and some of the most valuable of our English prelates and divines, but upon the whole race of the Primi- tive Bishops, and ‘the whole Church of the first-born,’ and of the most pure and uncorrupted ages. I cannot but say that his Lordship had much better consulted his own honour, by leaving this dirty work to Dr. Hancock and Dr. Wise. In the sequel of the Charge, he is pleased to say a great many sweet things, to persuade both sides to peace and mutual forbearance ; and having observed‘ that “ some of each party accuse the other as betraying the Church, one side to Popery, the other to Presbytery ;’ he adds, “ Hard censures, and such as will one day be severely accounted for, if they are groundless, as I trust they are in the main on both sides. I do hope there are very few on either that are justly liable to them.” Now certainly the most prevailing argument that my Lord could have used to them who charge some οὗ the Church with a design of betraying us to Presbytery, was to have given an example in his own person of laying aside all suspicions of Popery in the doctrines there mentioned, and which are now asserted by those against whom this part of his Charge is directed, and such a pattern might have been very influential and powerful; and if there were any on that side who charge the other with betraying us to Presbytery, that proceeded to calumniate the Bishop or any of his side for the future, they would have been more inexcusable. As for myself, I solemnly declare that I do not believe any one of our English Bishops disposed to betray us to Presbytery®, much less is it credible that his Lordship should have so ill
© Page 10. 4 Page 21. ¢ This was written by me A.D. 1715. [Author's note, 2nd ed. ]
8 PREFATORY EPISTLE.
an opinion of his own friends, though he knows them much better than I can pretend to do. And I cannot conceive what his Lordship intended by seeming to give it for granted that a few on both sides might be justly liable to these censures, unless it were that he found it convenient for his hypothesis to have it believed that some few of the writers on our side were disposed to betray us to Popery, and then for a proof of his own impartiality, thought it but reasonable to give up a few of the other side, as willing to betray us to Presbytery. And by the few who would betray us to Popery, it is obvious to suppose, that he by a usual figure of rhetoric meant one single man, for it is very hard for a successor to forget his ejected living predecessor.
You, my Lord, are pleased to begin your arguings on this head with the same reflection; for you were truly sensible that there was no proof that could be thought of any force against this doctrine, but what had a spice of the same sort of logic. You do not “ wonder that priests of the Church of Rome, but that presbyters of a Reformed Church should lay claim to a Sacrifice ;” and are pleased to add that “it is pretty new, and somewhat unaccountable’.” Now, my Lord, with submission, the sturdy dissenters from our Church are much fuller of admiration at all who believe that Episcopacy is of Divine or Apostolical institution, or that we can pray spiritually by a form, than your Lordship can be at us for affirming the Eucharist to be a Sacrifice. And it is certain that the Sacrifice of the Primitive Church, explained in the following book, differs as widely from that of the Papists as our Episcopacy and Liturgy does from theirs. As to the newness of it, your Lordship will give me leave to wonder that it should be an objection against the Sacrifice, since it is very evident (not to mention Mr. Perkins the rigid Calvinist’s known opinion in this point) that Mr. Mede publicly declared for the Altar and Sacrifice in Cambridge, A.D. 1635 ; whereas there is a doctrine openly espoused by several leading men of late, that is younger than this by six years, and when it was first started was universally dis- avowed by all the sound clergy and laity of the Church of England, and yet is now the darling notion of some that
£ Page 13.
-—
PREFATORY EPISTLE, 9
boast themselves your Lordship’s friends, against which you have not cautioned your clergy in your Charge; nay, of which your Lordship is believed to be a fautor. And I must add, that whereas the doctrine of the Sacrifice is truly primi- tive and Apostolical, this latter is destitute of all authority from the writings and practice of the first and purest ages, and was always by our Protestant divines of the Church of England represented as an invention of the Hildebrandine Papists, until now of late days. I need not tell you that I mean the doctrine of Resistance.
Your Lordship is willing to have it believed that Arch- bishop Laud was of a different sentiment from us, when he wrote his Conference with the Jesuit; and to prove it, you observe that he calls it ‘The Memory of a Sacrifice ;᾽ and so did the Fathers, my Lord, and so do we, who yet believe it to be a real Sacrifice, as will appear by this book. You are pleased farther to cite that blessed martyr, for asserting “three Sacrifices®, one by the priest, 1. e. the commemorative sacrifice of Christ’s death, represented in bread and wine ; another by the priest and people, i. e. the sacrifice of praise ; the third, by every particular man, i. e. the sacrifice of body and soul.” Upon these words your Lordship is pleased to re- mark, “this enumeration of sacrifices, without putting any distinction between them, is a plain sign he thought none of them proper.” I submit it to your Lordship’s second thoughts, whether the enumeration do not necessarily imply a distinction ; or how it can in common equity be supposed that so excellent a writer should say, first, second, third, and yet mean one and the same. If the first be not a proper sacrifice, I must confess I am wholly mistaken in my reason- ings on this subject. Your Lordship spends two or three pages more on {115 subject, but I hope you will excuse me if I wholly omit the consideration of them, since you are not pleased to mention any authority of the ancient Church, ex- cept only that of St. Chrysostom, on the Epistle to the Hebrews, which I have considered Chap. IT. Sect. 1, nor to offer at any argument from Scripture or reason. And as to what concerns the author of the Vade, I shall briefly speak to it before I conclude this epistle. But when your Lordship
E § 35. p. 199.
10 PREFATORY EPISTLE.
had been pleased in your Charge to intimate that “it was more fit for Romish priests than English presbyters” to plead for the Sacrifice, I cannot but think that you too much lessen your performance in your preface, when you speak of those paragraphs which were intended against the Sacrifice, and call them the “little you have said” on that subject; for, my Lord, I am perfectly of opinion that your Lordship has used the strongest, I may say, the only argument against it, by intimating, though in a more gentle and tender manner than others, that it is a Popish doctrine: for this little is the sum and substance of all that has been said to purpose in the writings of Dr. Hancock, and others. They may outdo your Lordship in multiplicity of words and pages, but not in true and solid argument; and your Lordship has said all that m a line or two, which others have been able to say in their larger writings ; for if I know any thing of the matter, I must profess that I am fully of opimion that nothing great can be said against the Sacrifice.
There is another writer, whose style speaks him a gentle- man of polite learning, and distinguishes him from our ad- versaries of the coarser sort, though he is pleased to conceal his name and character, who in a small book*, which he calls A Defence of the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of England, is “at a loss how Dr. Hickes will distinguish his pro- pitiatory Sacrifice of the Eucharist, from the propitiatory Sa- crifice of the Mass',” though Dr. Hickes expressly calls it “an oblation of bread and wine,” in the words cited by this ingeni- ous author: and one would think this made an essential dif- ference between the Sacrifice of Dr. Hickes and of the Papists: by this you may measure the impartiality of this writer.
And I am of opinion that his politeness, and other good qualities, cannot make amends for his want of faithfulness in representing the opinion of the most excellent Mede ; for this author would persuade us that ‘Mr. Mede, from first to last, resolves all into an oblation of prayer and thanksgiving to God the Father, through Jesus Christ*.” Again, “Mr. Mede owns that here is nothing offered in this Sacrament, but
h T had been falsely informed that [Author's note, 2nd ed. ]
Bishop Fleetwood was the author of i Page 10.
this book, whereas I am since assured k Page 7. that it was Dr. Turner of Greenwich.
PREFATORY EPISTLE. il
prayer and thanksgiving, and these made acceptable to God, by the Sacrifice of Christ on the cross, commemorated and represented by the bread and wine ;” and in the next page, “though he carries this notion of a Sacrifice much higher than any Protestant writer before him; yet while nothing was in reality pretended to be offered, but only prayer and thanks- giving, and those only in commemoration of the real Sacrifice of the death of Christ, and not otherwise; this has been looked upon as ene of the particularities of that learned man,” &c. Now I must observe that this representation confutes itself; for it says that Mr. Mede “carried this notion of a Sacri- fice higher than any Protestant writer had done before;” and yet says, that “nothing,” according to him, “ was to be offered, but prayer and praise:” for sure no Protestant writer ever asserted that prayer and praise are not offered in the Eu- charist; and if Mr. Mede affirmed that nothing more was offered there, how did he carry this notion higher than other Protestants? But let Mr. Mede speak for himself, who in discoursing on Malachi i. 10, 11, says, “Incense here notes the rational part of the Sacrifice, which is prayer, thanksgiving, and commemoration; mincha the material part thereof, which is oddatio farrea, or an oblation of bread and wine’.” Again, “the oblation of bread and wine is implied in St. Paul’s parallel of the Lord’s Supper, and the Sacrifices of Gentiles ; ‘ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s Table, and the table of devils™.’” And alittle after, “the Passover was a Sacrifice, and therefore the viands here, as in all other [holy] feasts, were first offered to God: now the bread and wine which our Saviour took when He blessed and gave thanks, was the mincha, or meat-offermg of the Passover; if then He did, as the Jews used to do, He agnized His Father, and blessed Him, by oblation of these His creatures to Him.” And as I observed in Propitiatory Oblation®, Mr. Mede affirms that whereas in the Clementine Liturgy, prayer is made to God “that He would receive the gift up to His heavenly Altar ; by the gift must be understood the bread and wine® :” but I will only further observe, that he asserts
1 See his Works, 3rd edition, 1672, " Page 90. p. 358. ° Page 374. m Ibid., p. 274.
12 PREFATORY EPISTLE.
“the Eucharist to be a Sacrifice, not in a metaphorical, but proper sense?;” and spends a whole chapter to prove “that the primitive Church, after Christ’s example, first offered bread and wine to God; then received them again in a banquet, as the symbols of the Body and Blood of His Son4.” My Lord, I humbly recommend the consideration of this flat contradic- tion to truth, in the most valuable writer against the Sacri- fice, next to yourself and my Lord Bishop of Oxford, to your impartial examination: and it is the more gross and palpa- ble, because it may be discovered by looking into an English book, open to every vulgar eye.
It is true, Mr. Mede might safely say, in some sense, that we offer nothing but prayer and praise in the Eucharist ; and the same might be said of all the animal sacrifices of thanks- giving under the law: for the very animal itself was called, when so offered, 77)n, αἴνεσις, that is, ‘praise; as an offering for sin was also called ‘sin’ in the abstract ; but this does not at all prove that the Sacrifice itself in either case was. per- fectly immaterial, as I have shewed in the following book, Chap. IT. Sect. 2.
This same writer at another place perstringes the assertors of a sacrifice for “ascribing a strange mystical efficacy to the act of consecration; and for placing he knows not what mysterious powers in the act of consecration, and invocation of the Holy Ghost’ ;” and speaks of those divmes as “perfect- ing our reformation,” who (in Queen Elizabeth’s time) “did not bring in again that form of consecration and invocation of the Holy Ghost :” by all which I cannot understand this writer to mean less than that it is a fault to ascribe any mys- terious efficacy, or power, to the prayer of consecration used in the primitive Church, and that our Liturgy is more per- fect without it than it was with it. In answer to which I will only appeal to another book, entituled, The Reasonable Communicant, where we are informed that “a Divine power and efficacy does accompany the holy Sacrament ;” and for the proof of this, the author uses this argument, namely, that “the Church of Christ did heretofore pray that the Holy Spirit of God coming down on the creatures of bread and wine, might make them the Body and Blood of Christ,” and,
P Page 372. 4 Ibid. * Pages 11, 12.
PREFATORY EPISTLE. 13
“that after the consecration such a Divine power and efficacy doth accompany the holy Sacrament, as makes the bread and wine become the spiritual and mystical Body and Blood of Christ*.” Now this is all that either the ancient Church or we ascribe to the prayer of consecration. These two books are equally admired by the adversaries of the Sacrifice ; but I cannot but think The Reasonable Communicant to have been written with a genius and temper much beyond that which appears in the Defence: and therefore from the cen- sures of the latter I appeal to the primitive doctrine con- tained in the former. And I must add that this prayer of invocation for the descent of the Holy Ghost is very far from any just suspicion of Popery: for there is no such prayer in the present Roman Missal, nor has been for eleven hundred years last past ; but in the time of Pope Gelasius the First, at the latter end of the fifth century, there probably was, as will hereafter appear.
2. The next objection of this sort against the writers for the Sacrifice is, that they trump up this doctrine with some indirect design, which they are afraid to own; and that the doctrine itself has an ill aspect on the civil government: and this I only take to be a proof of the jealousy of our adver- saries, or rather a sorry artifice to render us suspected to the court. If they who were the chief ministers of state when Dr. Hickes, and Mr. Nelson, and some others, published their notions on this subject, had believed their own divines, they might have been ready enough to take this opportunity of crushing some men, upon whom they had an ill eye; but I am apt to think that they rather laughed in their sleeves when they observed how forward and officious some clergy- men (unworthy of that name) are, to traduce and delate their brethren and their best friends, in order to signalize their zeal for those that were in a capacity to reward it. If the assertors of the Sacrifice had had any intentions against the state, they would certainly have chosen some more popular theme, they would have started some notions that were new at least, and better contrived to captivate the multitude. This is Popery, if our adversaries may be judges; and can
* See Reasonable Com., p. 12, 13. think, to be Bishop Fleetwood’s. (2nd 8rd ed. [This is allowed by all, 1 ed.)]
14. PREFATORY EPISTLE.
they think that preaching, or writing for Popery, is a proper method to engage people against the government? It is rather an infallible way to provoke both governors and people against ourselves. I am of opinion that it would puzzle the most learned of our adversaries to give one single instance of any doctrine, whether old or new, true or false, that could with less probability be made use of, to seduce people from their allegiance to the Queen, than this which is now in dis- pute. If you consider the genius of the people, they are, or were, either averse to it, or altogether unconcerned for or against it: if you consider the doctrine itself, it has no rela- tion to the civil government. Dr. Taylor, that was after- wards Bishop of Down and Connor, did, in the time of our confusions, while rebellion and fanaticism reigned, directly assert the doctrine of the Sacrifice. He did the same thing which Dr. Hancock, in his preface to his book against Dy. Hickes', charges as a fault on Mr. Nelson; that is, he brought the notion of a Sacrifice into a book of devotion, I mean his Holy Living and Dying". [Nay, he did more than all this, he drew a Communion Office* m the English tongue according to the scheme of the ancient Greek and Apostolical Liturgies: only in one particular he differs from them, that is in placing the Consecration, or the prayer for the descent of the Holy Ghost on the Communicants, and on the Sym- bols, before the rehearsal of the words of institution. In all the ancient Liturgies we have first the institution, then the oblation, and last of all the prayer for the descent of the Holy Ghost. But Bishop Taylor follows the series of the first Liturgy of Edward VI.] And even Mr. Patrick, who was afterwards D.D. and Bishop of Ely, did, before those confusions were ended, openly declare for an oblation of bread and wine, as I shall presently shew ; yet I am not sen- sible that they were by the enthusiastic and fanatical divines of that age represented as malignants, or disaffected to the government on that account: nor had either of those two
t Page 4. and the ancient Liturgies, &c., by Jer. u Pages 281, 334. Taylor, D.D., Bishop of Down and * See this Communion Office in a Connor. 2nd ed., printed for Luke Collection of Offices, or Forms of Meredith, at the Angel, in Amen Prayer, in cases ordinary and extra- Corner. 1690. ordinary, taken out of the Scripture,
PREFATORY EPISTLE. 18
great men the vanity to think that by this means they pro- moted the restoration of King Charles 11., though it happened within half a year after Mr. Patrick’s book was printed. And I conceive, if either of them had claimed a reward, as instru- ments of that happy turn of affairs, and attempted to prove it by shewing their books for the Sacrifice or oblation, they could not more effectually have exposed themselves. And I leave this to the reflection of those who would represent the publication of this primitive doctrine as a treasonable prac- tice, and a plot against the state, in the reign of our most pious and merciful Queen, which yet passed unpunished and uncensured on this account even by fanatical rebels and usurpers ; who were the most apt of any men living to make use of fictitious and imaginary crimes, and were pushed on by visionary fears, and the ill-bodings of their own con- sciences, to oppress truth and right.
3. It may be said that this doctrine tends to create divi- sions amongst us; and this may be said of any doctrine which is not universally received, when books are published for and against it. But then the question is, whether we ought from hence to conclude that truth is never to be pub- lished for fear of this consequence ; and whether they who assert truth, or they who oppose it, are justly chargeable with those divisions which follow thereupon. And both these par- ticulars I leave to your Lordship’s determination. There is another question, which I humbly lay before your Lordship, and that is, why the publishing a book in behalf of the Sacri- fice by Dr. Hickes, should be looked upon as more culpable and tending to division than by Mr. Mede. For, my Lord, it is notorious that Mr. Mede’s Christian Sacrifice was a book as much celebrated as any other written by him, or by any of our most famous divines ; and to say that he did not write for a material proper Sacrifice, is mere fiction. And what reason could Dr. Hickes have to suppose that his writ- ings on the same subject should meet with more opposition from our Bishops and clergy, than Mr. Mede’s had done? And as I believe Dr. Hickes’s book yet remains unanswered, so I am not sensible that any man has attempted a reply to Mr. Mede. And if our divines had for the five or six years last past been as universally well affected to the Sacrifice, as
16 PREFATORY EPISTLE.
they had been for seventy years before, Dr. Hickes’s book had occasioned no more division than Mr. Mede’s ; for it is oppo- sition that causes division. Dr. Hickes and others have said no more than what Mr. Mede had said before in other words ; and if his saying it cause animosities among us, this must in justice be resolved into a prejudice which some have con- ceived against the writer, rather than the book. Why else must the Christian Priesthood be assaulted, while the Chris- tian Sacrifice remains unattacked, and has so remained for near eighty years together ? It is scarce to be expected that this age should be more free from disputes than any of those that have already passed: for there are in all ages such as love truth, and such as hate it, or however, cannot see it in any opinion or practice maintamed by those to whom they have an aversion upon other accounts, but oppose the truth for the sake of those who are advocates for it, and consider not so much what is said, as who speaks it, and it is therefore no more to be wondered that disputes and oppositions hap- pen now, than that they have done so in all preceding times. And I am fully persuaded that there is no neglected truth that more deserves to be contended for than the doctrine of the Sacrifice ; for I suppose it will appear to all unprejudiced inquirers to be a truth of very great moment and conse- quence. And though when some assert truth, and others contradict it, divisions must of necessity be the effect; yet the assertors in this case cannot but believe that as their cause is right, so the Divine Providence will not permit such divisions to be lasting; for great is the rruTH, and will pre- vail, even against the most powerful opponents. I doubt not, but in the primitive Church, whatever Bishop had opposed, or depraved the Sacrifice, he would immediately have been obliged to give place to an orthodox successor: for I have reason to believe that the ancient Bishops, clergy, and peo- ple, were not more uniform in any point of doctrine or wor- ship, than in their notions and practice concerning the Eucharistical oblation. And if any single Bishop, with the generality of his clergy and laity, had agreed together to maim or deface the Christian Sacrifice, and stood in defiance of their neighbouring Bishops and Synods; yet any parti- cular clergyman or layman, who was dissatisfied with these
PREFATORY EPISTLE. 17
innovations, might, in such a case, have removed into another diocese, where the Sacrifice was retained in its perfect purity and splendour ; but it is evident that nothing of this sort is now practicable in this national Church ; and that therefore such priests and pious discerning laymen, as are convinced of the truth and necessity of the primitive Sacrifice, and do not think that the public provision for it is sufficient, have no proper remedy left, but to labour with prayers to God, and with persuasions and arguments to men, for the perfect restitution of the sacrificial oblatory part of the Christian Liturgy; and in the mean time, to supply such defects as well as they can, by their own private silent devotions. Ina word, the writers for the Sacrifice may be impleaded as the ringleaders of division and faction ; but then this accusation may with as good reason be laid against them, who write for the necessity of Episcopacy in Scotland, or who contend for the Liturgy in the vulgar tongue in Spain or Italy.
4. But this doctrine of the Sacrifice (say some) tends to alienate the minds of dissenters from the clergy and com- munion of the Church, and thereby to put a stop to the union so much expected. But I conceive your Lordship by this time may be convinced, that this union of dissenters with the Church, is a mere airy phantom, and that we are never to expect that the main body of dissenters, as they now stand affected, would unite with the Church upon any reasonable terms ; nor have they ever shewed any signs of, or tendencies to, a peaceable disposition ; and the clergy have no method left of winning them to the Church, but as they can gradu- ally, and man by man, by argument and persuasion, recon- cile them to our communion. And I am fully persuaded, that we may as easily demonstrate the truth and necessity of the doctrine of a Sacrifice in the Eucharist, as any other point now in dispute between us. But if we must publish no doc- trine but what agrees with the palates of dissenters, I am sure our sermons and writings must be very defective; nor can we be true to our Blessed Master, and teach our people ‘to do all things which He hath commanded us.’ And dis- senters themselves will justly loathe us, and our communion, if once they find that we stifle our own real sentiments, and
conceal our true principles in order to catch them. And JOHNSON, Cc
18 PREFATORY EPISTLE.
there is nothing more inconsistent with Christian simplicity, and with that παῤῥησία, that integrity and assurance of mind, in speaking the whole truth and nothing but the truth, as it is in Christ ; than to handle the Word of God deceitfully, either by curtailing what we believe to be the doctrine of the Gospel, or by adulterating it with sophistical mixtures, to make it go down the better with men whose palates are vitiated. I most heartily desire peace with the dissenters ; but I desire it on Christian terms, and upon the primitive plan ; and I am very sure, that no other peace can be either honourable or lasting.
5. It may be said that the public maintaining of this doc- trine, especially if it were espoused by the generality of the Bishops and clergy, might give a handle to the enemies of the Church to persecute and destroy them. And must then the Pastors of Christ’s flock be afraid of discharging their consciences, and executing their Master’s commission, lest they should suffer for it? And shall the fear of men so far prevail over us, as to make us forget our duty to our God and Saviour? Can the Church of this age hope to flourish and enlarge its bounds by any other means than those by which the Apostolical Church did first overcome the world; that is, by boldness in speaking the truth, and by patience in suffer- ing for it? I trust im God, there are now, as well as of old, men that are ready to suffer all things for the sake even of the least of those Commandments, which they have received from their ever blessed Redeemer, much more for so very momentous an institution. I am persuaded, that if God, in His gracious Providence, do ever intend any farther exalta- tion of our Church, and to perfect the glory of it, He will do it in the old method, that is, by the fiery trial of some at least of its most eminent or zealous members. And to say that a doctrine must not be taught for fear of provoking men, is in effect to say, that Christians and Priests must study to please men, lest they should become Martyrs or Confessors. I take it for certain, that God will never truly magnify His Church by human policies, or by the temporizing palliative arts of the wise men of this world; but by the sincere disin- terested zeal, and firm constancy of the clergy and people, or of a number of them, in opposition to the frowns and smiles
PREFATORY EPISTLE. 19
of all its professed enemies or mistaken friends. It is very certain, my Lord, that the greatest and most formidable enemies of the Church are they who believe our very Creeds to be Popery, and our Sacraments priestcraft; who would re- duce our Christian faith to one single article, that Jesus is the Messias, and look upon that too as far from being neces- sary. And, my Lord, the friendship of these men is never to be expected but upon a total renunciation of primitive Christianity. They may caress those who oppose the Sacrifice, and such like doctrines, as more moderate enemies; but if once they can crush them whom they call high-flyers, their next work will be to silence and suppress those that are for retaining the twelve old articles of the Christian faith ; for they have the very same objection against these that the author of the Defence has against the mysterious power of Consecration, viz. that “it amuses the understandings, and confounds the devotion of the common people’.” And though these men of short creeds are now the chief patriots and fautors of the dissenting interest, in opposition to that of the Church, yet if God in His displeasure should permit the dis- senters to be made use of by such men as tools to the de- struction of the established religion, they would soon find, by dear-bought experience, that these pretended patriots are no more friends to their principles than ours, (except it be in relation to civil government,) and that very few, in compari- son, of those who separate from the Church, will find any countenance from those whom they now look upon as their chief supporters. For it is very evident, that they measure their own and other men’s religion by the brevity and plain- ness of their creeds, and are known enemies to every thing that is mysterious and above reason; and will as soon become converts to the Quakers, as to the Presbyterians or Inde- pendents; and as easily be reconciled to the principles of Dr. Hickes or Mr. Dodwell, as of Calvin or Baxter. They can fawn upon fanatics, enthusiasts, or even Bishops, if they can hope by this means to serve a present turn; but Machiavel, Algernon Sidney, and such lke writers, are their oracles in relation to civil government; and Socinus, Toland, or Blunt, as to matters of religion. And I cannot but won- y Page 12. c2
20 PREFATORY EPISTLE.
der to see men, who, I in charity believe, are Christians at the heart, espouse the interest, and put themselves under the protection of such leaders ; and I can look upon it as little less than a judicial infatuation, that men, who have any manner of regard to that faith which was once delivered to the saints, can court, or permit themselves to be courted by, such dema- gogues. These are the chief enemies, from whom at present the Church has reason to apprehend any mischief ; and these are as inveterate against our Catholic forms of faith, and other essentials of Christianity, as agaist the Sacrifice. But give me leave to add, that these men do bear a most especial hatred to those of your Lordship’s venerable order: they may for some private reasons lke the man, but they cannot but abhor the Bishop. And I have reason to believe, that of the two they would choose a Sacrifice without a Bishop, rather than a Bishop without a Sacrifice. For, my Lord, with these men that is the best religion that is the cheapest; and, next to the shortness of the Creed, the second best property in it is the smallness of the cost. It is well known that this is one reason alleged, why so many Protestant States are not capable of receiving Episcopacy ; viz. because they are not able to support the dignity of Bishops, which they therefore represent as extremely burdensome and expensive; and no doubt but these men would at any time of the day exchange Episcopacy for the Eucharistical Sacrifice, and think it a good bargain too; and therefore I cannot believe that the most terrible enemies of our Church can be so much provoked to destroy it, on account of this doctrine of the Sacrifice, if it were as universally received and practised as I could wish it were ; as they already are by the Episcopal form of govern- ment, and the Bishops’ lands.
It may be suspected by some, that our own people may be inflamed against us on this account; but I must profess, I have no reason to apprehend any such consequence. ‘There can be no just cause for them to be averse from the Sacrifice, more than the Eucharist itself. Formerly indeed our people were too ready to hearken to the malicious suggestions of fanatics against the clergy; but I cannot but say, that dis- senters have of late years, in a great measure, forfeited their credit with the people of our communion. It is commonly
PREFATORY EPISTLE. 21
said, I know, that Archbishop Laud’s zeal for the Sacrifice was the principal objection against him, and cost him his life, and was one great occasion of all the public calamities that ensued upon it; and of this the Defence takes notice”. I question not, but it was a comfort to Archbishop Laud that he died a martyr in so good a cause; and yet the odium against Archbishop Laud was raised by the faction of that age, altogether as much upon the score of his zeal for those doctrines which were then called Arminianism, as for that of the Sacrifice ; for the Divines who then prevailed, condemned all those primitive principles as rank Popery, which yet has not deterred the clergy, and even the Bishops themselves, since those days, from openly espousing those doctrines and principles, notwithstanding the hideous declamations of the fierce dissenters against them on this account. And I be- lieve it may be justly said, that the tenets which are falsely called Arminian, do now generally obtain. And this is a plain proof, that a doctrine thrives the better, for having been watered by the blood of the holy Martyr. Et Deus secundet Omen. They who look no further than to the out- side of things, may imagine that this great man was perse- cuted even to death for his opinions and notions ; but they who impartially read the history of those times, and reflect upon the temper of the chief actors in that bloody tragedy, will find it evident, that it was the man, the royal counsellor, and the Christian Primate, they aimed at ; and when he and his order were destined to destruction by the party which then prevailed, some colours must be used, some specious pretext contrived, for so barbarous and inhuman a murder, for so execrable and sacrilegious a devastation of the purest Church in the world. Our people, left to themselves, could never have so far been inflamed against the Archbishop or the Church, as to proceed to such furious excesses. The puritanical preachers, who at that time had gotten possession of, or borrowed pulpits in the city, and in all the populous places of the nation, exasperated the minds of the people against that great man, and his pious endeavours to perfect our constitution; and these preachers were the men, who being set on by the heads of the party in the two Houses, 2 Page 9.
.-
22 PREFATORY EPISTLE.
did, under pretence of zeal against Popery, run down Prelacy, Arminianism, Altars, and Sacrifice, and indeed the Church itself, with one and the same breath. We have no more reason to apprehend any danger to the Altar and Sacrifice from our own people, than my lords the Bishops have to their dignities and authority, or the whole Church to our Liturgy and worship; unless it can be supposed, that some of our own body can act the part which was then left to the puritanical preachers, and make false alarms of Popery, and other ill things, that were never meant, and which can scarce be believed by them who would persuade others to do so. The clamours of dissenters are now, ina great measure, confined within the walls of their conventi- cles; and the infection, God be praised, is not so spreading as it was in those days. Our enemies of that sort can never hurt us, if we be but true to ourselves, and can but contain our tongues and pens from misrepresenting each other.
And further, in answer to all objections of this kind, in which the merits of the cause are not concerned, but only the prudence of the writers and the seasonableness of their enterprise, I desire it may be considered ; first, That Divine truth is always seasonable, except to cunning men and poli- ticians ; and no truth can at any time be seasonable to them if it do not fall in with their own schemes and projections ; nay, nothing is easily admitted for truth with them which is disobligg or unagreeable to those whose friendship they court, or by whose means they hope to advance their own in- terest. I am apt to believe that the very Gospel itself had been yet unknown to the greatest part of Europe, if the first publishers of it had stayed till they were called for by the masters of politics in the several nations where it now prevails. Nay, secondly, I cannot but think that Dr. Hickes’s attempt to establish this doctrine was as well timed as any thing of this nature could be. It was when he saw a violent assault made on the very being of the Church and Priesthood ; when a design was publicly set on foot to dissolve the Catholic Church into numberless clans and clubs, and to degrade Priests into mere tenders, or under-spur-leathers to those clans or clubs; and not to assert the Sacrifice on such a very urgent occasion, would have been interpreted as a tacit re-
PREFATORY EPISTLE. 23
nunciation of it. There had now passed seventy years since the publication of Mr. Mede’s Christian Sacrifice, and though several divines had in this interval followed him in this par- ticular, so far as to let the world know that they did believe the Eucharist to be a proper Sacrifice, yet scarce any had professedly and at large treated upon it. It was, therefore, now high time to renew this claim, when there was the most violent provocation given that ever was, as I verily believe, from the first institution of the Sacrifice and the Priesthood, to this very day. Further, there had at that time, when Dr. Hickes published the Christian Priesthood, been public agitations for altering some particulars in the Liturgy of our Church ; and it is well known, that this had been proposed to the Convocation soon after the Revolution; and it was with good reason supposed, that the governors of the Church waited only for a seasonable opportunity of renewing this proposal. And sure no man will wonder, if a divine of Dr. Hickes’s eminence, who was himself perfectly convinced of the truth and importance of this doctrine, did earnestly desire, that when the Convocation should again sit upon this weighty affair, some alterations might be made in favour of this most primitive doctrme. And whatever reasons of state or human prudence there might then be to the contrary, yet it must be acknowledged that the thing itself was very desir- able, that when so many alterations were meditated in com- pliance with the present age, some regard might be had to Apostolical antiquity. If the Doctor did apprehend that this effort of his was hke to meet with opposition from several persons of great authority in the Church, I cannot think that this was a sufficient consideration to check his honest and pious zeal, upon supposition that he was in his own con- science satisfied of the justice of his cause, which ought in common equity to be presumed. Your Lordship knows very well that the corruptions of the Church of Rome were first discovered by private persons, and that a very great part of this nation was, by the writings of particular men, convinced of the necessity of a reformation long before any countenance had been given to this cause, either by our King or Prelates. And it is notorious that Christianity was introduced into most nations by the care and courage of some one, or of a
.
94. PREFATORY EPISTLE.
few men, in opposition to all human power. If this method prove inconvenient, it is most of all so to such as are the undertakers. And they indeed often have incurred severe penalties, and even death itself, for speaking bold truths when politicians did not think it seasonable. And Dr. Hickes is a man that has given effectual demonstration to the world that he can suffer in a cause which he believes to be good and righteous. When this doctrme was countenanced by the ecclesiastical and civil powers, it pleased God to permit it, together with the Church itself, to be run down by a popu- lar fury, anda most horrid unnatural rebellion. And it is pro- bable, that Divine Providence will choose to restore the pri- mitive Sacrifice by the same method that Divine truth has gained reception in all ages, that is gradually, by the endeavours and patient sufferings of those who engage in the defence of it. You, my Lord, together with my Lord Bishop of Oxford, have consulted your own safety and taken effectual care not to die martyrs, as the most Reverend Archbishop Laud in some measure did, for this holy truth. And I have not heard of more than one of that present venerable bench that has ever been pleased publicly to declare in favour of it. Iam sometimes inclined to think, that the avowed opposition of two of our Bishops against this doctrine, is so far from being an ill symp- tom of the disposition of the clergy and people to embrace the doctrine and practice of the Sacrifice, that 1 do not know but it may in the event be one means of making way for its general reception. Jam not so sanguine as to hope that this whole Church can be convinced of this truth all at once; nor yet am I without hope, that by God’s blessing on the labours of them who do now, or may hereafter contend for the perfect establishment of it, the prejudices of men may by degrees be conquered, and the Unbloody Sacrifice and Altar recover its pristine lustre and esteem, not by the force and imposition of human authority, but by its own intrinsic excellence and rea- sonableness, and by the irresistible evidence of Scripture and antiquity ; for this is the way by which Divine truth delights to diffuse itself. And though I cannot in reason expect to live to that blessed day, yet I am full of hopes that it will not be long before the primitive Sacrifice gains an establish- ment in our public councils, with a nemine contradicente,
PREFATORY EPISTLE. 25
with the concurrent desires and suffrages of the clergy and people.
And now, my Lord, I must have liberty to say, that I have answered all the objections I know of, both against the Sacri- fice itself, and the defenders of it; the former in the book itself, the latter in this Prefatory Epistle, without concealing the force or strength of any one of them. Dr. Hancock, I remember, tells Dr. Hickes*, “that he could help him to better proofs of the Sacrifice than those which he had pro- duced.” If there were any truth in this, Dr. Hancock by saying it only proved the weakness of his own performance ; for all writers, that would do justice to their own cause, ought to assail the strongest arguments that they know against it ; and he that does it not, leaves a just suspicion in his reader’s mind, that the reason why he conceals them is, that he has no sufficient answer to make; and therefore the most charitable construction that can be put upon this say- ing of Dr. Hancock’s is, that it was a mere gasconade.
Your Lordship might perhaps expect, that I should under- take to answer all the allegations produced from our modern divines against the sacrifice of the Mass; but I think I should undervalue the judgments of those great men by sup- posing that they would have argued against the Sacrifice as represented by Mr. Mede and Dr. Hickes, in the same man- ner that they have done against the Sacrifice of Transubstan- tiation in the Church of Rome. And I do seriously profess to your Lordship, that the two Charges published by yourself and my Lord of Oxford, are as full of authority against the Sacrifice as any of those citations which have so plentifully been produced from modern Bishops and Doctors ; nay, your own opinion, in relation to the Sacrifice, would weigh as much with me as that of Bishop Overall, or any of your pre- decessors in the See of Norwich, upon supposition that your Lordship’s opinion were supported with as good authorities from true antiquity as theirs; and without such support, I am confident your Lordship will not expect that your judg- ment should be thought decisive. I would as soon resign myself to the determination of my Lord Bishop of Oxford that now is, as to that of his most learned and generous pre-
a Answer, p. 207.
26 PREFATORY EPISTLE.
decessor, Bishop Fell, if his Lordship’s sentiment were as agreeable to that of the primitive Church, as I believe Bishop Fell’s to have been. If my most reverend patron, diocesan, and primate, should think fit to declare against the Sacrifice, I must own his personal authority to be as great and weighty in itself considered, as that of Archbishop Laud, or any of his Grace’s predecessors, since the time of Augustine to this very day ; but since our divines of late ages have very much differed in their judgments on this head of religion, therefore I know no other more proper course to bring this dispute to a just issue, than by appealing to genuine uncorrupted antiquity. The Reverend Dr. Hickes has produced a great number of citations from our Protestant Bishops and divines, many of which are very full and express for the Sacrifice ; and I de- sire that these may be laid in the scale against those allega- tions, which, though aimed against the Popish Mass, yet may seem to bear hard upon the primitive Sacrifice itself. Since there is not so perfect a harmony and agreement on this sub- ject amongst our English divines, as there is in other matters, it remains, that either these disputes continue still undecided, or that they be brought to a conclusion by an impartial in- quiry into the judgment of the primitive Apostolical Church.
As for that trite objection which neither your Lordship, nor any of those who have opposed the Christian Sacrifice have omitted, I mean Mr. Mede’s acknowledgment that “what the ancient Church understood by the Sacrifice is beyond belief obscure and intricate; I hope the whole treatise annexed to this epistle is an effectual answer to it, though after all it was an objection that would have been thought of no weight in any other case, because, as I have elsewhere observed, Mr. Mede does not attribute the ob- scurity to the thing itself, but to the disputes raised about it. And if the obscurity of any doctrine be a sufficient proof against the truth of it, I am afraid there are very few doctrines in the Christian creed, or even in natural religion, nay in philosophy or metaphysics, that are not as much affected by this objection as the doctrine of the Sacrifice. I believe few of our Church do now doubt of the freedom of human actions because it is very hard to explain this doctrine so as to render it clearly consistent with the Divine pre-
PREFATORY EPISTLE. ΟἹ δα
science ; and what orthodox Christian renounces the doctrine of the Trinity because it is confessedly difficult to reconcile the unity of the Deity with the co-existence of three really Divine persons? and to disbelieve the Sacrifice because one cannot satisfy himself in the modalities of it, is just as rational as for a philosopher to deny the magnetic power because he is not convinced that any one has yet given a full and satisfactory solution of all the phenomena relating to that great secret of nature. And this is but one instance of many, which might be produced to shew that those objections are thought to be of force against the Sacrifice, which would not be thought to deserve an answer, if they were made against any other doctrine.
It was the chief design of those who have formerly set themselves to defend the Eucharistical Sacrifice, to prove the thing itself, viz. that our Saviour instituted, and the Apostles and primitive Church believed and practised this Sacrifice ; and I crave leave to say, that there was no necessity for me, or any man else, to take any further pains in this matter, for that our Saviour intended the Eucharist to be a Sacrifice, and that the most primitive Church did so esteem and use it, was as clear as anything need be. But because some men urged Mr. Mede’s confession of its obscurity as an argument against the very existence of the thing itself, I have endeavoured in the following sheets to present my reader with a draught of the Christian Sacrifice, both as to the material substances there offered, and as to the ends for which, and the Altar on which, and the officers by whom it is offered, and as to the manner of its consumption; and I conceive it will appear to any unprejudiced examiner, that the main difficulty in the whole scheme is to explain what that material thing or sub- stance is which is offered, or how or in what manner the bread and cup in the Sacrament are the Body and Blood of Christ, and by what means they became so; and I conceive that this difficulty does affect the Eucharist considered as a Sacrament rather than considered as a Sacrifice. That the nature of the Sacrament is very mysterious and obscure, is very evident from the multitude of those voluminous books that have been written upon that subject, and it is believed to be so to this day by all, except those who follow Gcolam-
28 PREFATORY EPISTLE.
padius, Arminius, or Socinus, who have generally been looked upon by all others to be erroneous in this point. If divines were once unanimously agreed what that material substance is which is given and received in the Eucharist, and by what means it becomes what it is, the main difficulty of the doc- trine of the Sacrifice would presently vanish ; and because the several bodies of divines of the Romish, Lutheran, and Calvinistical persuasion, do so widely differ in this matter ; and the Church of England is, I think, allowed by all to have made no precise determination in this point, but to have satisfied herself by saying in general terms, that “the Body and Blood of Christ is verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper ;” therefore I have been obliged to consider the doctrine of the primitive Church as to this pomt ; for without this it had been impossible to say what that was which was offered in the primitive Church. But it is evident that this difficulty does immediately concern the Sacrament rather than the Sacrifice ; and that therefore they who would prove there was no Sacrifice in the Church, because the nature of it is very obscure, might with much more reason haye asserted that there was no Sacrament among the ancients; for he that can solve the notions of the ancients in relation to the reality of the sacramental Body and Blood, has overcome the grand difficulty of the primitive Sacrifice ; and I humbly submit what. is offered upon this subject in the Appendix to Chap. IT. Sect. 1. to the judg- ment of your Lordship and the learned world.
Further, my Lord, though I have shewed that Mr. Mede did assert a material Sacrifice, yet it must be confessed, that he not living to see any book written in answer to his learned works on this subject, was not so fully aware of the neces- sity of proving at large that the primitive Sacrifice was ma- terial, by a particular induction of authorities to this purpose. He thought it sufficient to prove a Sacrifice of bread and wine, an Unbloody Sacrifice; not suspecting that any men could be so very exceptious as either to deny that a Sacrifice of bread and wine was the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ, or that such a Sacrifice would be deemed by Protest- ants to be the Sacrifice of the Mass; or that an Unbloody Sacrifice would be construed to be an oblation of mere
PREFATORY EPISTLE. 99
prayer and praise. Farther, I found that many who did believe the Eucharist to be a proper Sacrifice, yet were not sufficiently apprized of the great importance of this doctrine, and of the great stress that the ancients with good reason laid upon it; nay, I found that some who could see no reason to doubt but that the Sacrifice was believed and practised by the primitive Church, were not sufficiently satis- fied how this doctrine was reconcileable to the perfect satis- faction made by the personal oblation of Christ Himself. These considerations convinced me of the necessity of having those points cleared, and these obstacles to the reception of the Eucharistical Sacrifice removed.
It had been happy for the learned world if any one had published these objections and scruples while Mr. Mede was living and capable of writing an answer to them; for no man ever was more happy in understanding the Scripture and ancients than himself; but he was gone to his blessed rest before any now engaged in this controversy were born, as I have reason to believe. Archbishop Laud, his patron, a few years after fell a sacrifice to this doctrine among others ; the most primitively learned Bishop Bull was some years ago “ gathered to his fathers,’ whose doctrme he had so nobly followed and defended. Dr. Grabe soon followed him. Dr. Hickes, though yet alive, is worn out in the service of primitive Christianity and the study of antiquities, incapable of turning over books, and of the fatigue of writing or dic- tating anything that requires long application, and every day expecting his dissolution. Mr. Nelson was engaged in writ- ing the Life of Bishop Bull, and publishing his works, and wholly employed since in works whereby he will merit of the present, and of future generations. And since I could hear of no person that was willing to undertake an affair of this nature, I at last came to a resolution of doing it myself; for though I was sensible how inferior I am in all respects to the least of those eminent servants of God whom I have now mentioned, yet I could discern no objections against this doctrine which were not capable of being answered by one of my mediocrity; and I hoped that it would be an additional evidence to the insufficience and feebleness of the arguments against the Sacrifice, if they could be refelled
30 PREFATORY EPISTLE.
by one that was so indifferently versed in antiquity, and engaged in the sole service of so very large a cure of souls, as 1 am.
It was my resolution from the beginning, to take my measures and information from antiquity only, and therefore
not to look into any of those books that had been written
either by those of the Church of Rome for their corrupted Sacrifice, or by the Protestants against it; and I can truly say, I have most firmly and religiously observed this rule, which I at first proposed to myself. The Defence» censures Dr. Heylin for using the very texts, and “ the Expositions of them, which the Papists had done in defence of the Mass, in his Antidotum Lincolniense.” Now I declare, I have not touched a book written by the modern Papists on their Saeri- fice, nor did I ever see Dr. Heylin’s Antidotum, or make any inquiry after it. But if it be a crime to cite the same texts that Papists do, it is impossible to avoid it; for, beside the history of institution, there is but one context which our adversaries will allow to be meant of the Eucharist, I mean 1 Cor. x. The history of institution is in substance and effect but one, though four times repeated; and I cannot myself believe that beside the history of imstitution there are above four or five texts that do directly speak of the Eu- charist. Now Scripture-proof is what our opponents do almost wholly insist upon; and when we produce proofs from Scripture we are told, these are the very texts which the Papists use ; for what is here said of Dr. Heylin as to this point, must undoubtedly be true of all that ever did or | shall write upon this subject. Now I appeal to all the rational world, whether it be possible to imagine how such adversaries as these can think their cavils worthy of our con- sideration. Let them inform us of any one text in Scripture — that they will allow to relate to the Eucharist, which the Papists have not cited, (for a man that never read their books may easily presume that if there are so very few contexts in the New Testament touching this matter, they will use them all,) and I am pretty confident that no men of middling sense could bear to read any writer that should so egre- giously trifle upon any other subject ; and the very same > Page 8.
PREFATORY EPISTLE. oL
argument, mutatis mutandis, might with as good a face be made use of by Socinians against the very best of our writers
_ upon the doctrine of the Trinity, which we hold in common
with the Papists, and prove from the same texts of Scripture, and with the same expositions, that they do.
In order to pursue my resolutions, I drew up a collection of such authorities for the Sacrifice as might not only prove the Sacrifice itself, but give the best light I could expect into the nature and modus of it, according to the sentiments of the earliest writers ; and because I look upon the Fathers of the fourth century to be the best expositors of the doctrine of the three former ages, therefore I proceeded to take as much information from them, and from the councils held in the same age, as I thought necessary for my purpose. I am far from pretending to have drawn up the whole force of all antiquity ; nay, I have omitted very many testimonies of the fourth century, which I did know, and probably more and as good as those I have produced, because I was ignorant of them. I have taken some citations from Theodcret, and Cyril of Alexandria, as two of the most eminent and early writers of the fifth century, and who had their education in the fourth. I have avoided all citations from writers whom I could discover to be spurious, excepting only the constitutions called Apostolical, because they are allowed to be of very considerable antiquity, and drawn, save only some gross later interpolations, by very learned hands. It is very observable, that there is not any doctrine concerning the Eucharist, and particularly the Sacrifice, generally taught by the writers of the fourth cen- tury, according to the best of my observation, but what had been taught in the third, and second at least, and which I think I have proved to be the doctrine of our Saviour Him- self. The reader cannot expect such numerous and large proofs from the few remaining writers of the second and third century, and especially the first, as from those of the fourth ; but I cannot call to mind any particular of moment com- monly asserted in the fourth century, which was not likewise asserted in the former ages, though more briefly and con- cisely. And though I cannot so much depend on the writers of the fourth century when they were destitute of the autho- rity of the former ages; yet, when they fall in with them, it
32 PREFATORY EPISTLE.
seems a great proof that the Church of the former ages looked upon the doctrine or practice wherein there is so visi- ble an agreement, to be a matter of the greatest moment, and therefore did inculcate it upon their rising posterity with the greater earnestness and assiduity ; and that therefore their consent with their ancestors in such particulars proceeded from the unanimous judgment and faithful care of foregomg ages, to transmit such doctrines and practices clearly and fully to future generations. And what I have said of the fourth age, I might, I believe, apply to three or four succeed- ing centuries, so far as concerns the matter now in dispute ; for though there were, during this time, some additions made to the Eucharistic Liturgies, which might well have been spared, yet I am not apprehensive of any very gross corrup- tions introduced ; and I have given my reader a specimen of the judgment of the Church in the eighth century, from the Council of Constantinople that met to condemn image- worship ; from which it will appear, that even thus late the doctrine of the Eucharist and Sacrifice was preserved free from any gross adulteration, and especially from that which was afterwards called Transubstantiation ; and that there- fore, if Gregory Nyssen, so early as the fourth century, did teach a substantial change, as the most excellent Dr. Grabe suspects, this was peculiar to that Father, or, at the most, can be charged upon him and Cyril of Jerusalem only, (which last I must confess is in my opinion innocent as to this point,) and ought not to be looked upon as the current doc- trine of the Church, in that, or even the following ages.
I likewise made extracts from the most ancient Liturgies now extant ; and though none of them, except the Clemen- tine, be truly primitive, yet in such particulars as they agree with the Clementine, they do very much illustrate it, and shew the consent of Churches even in later ages, to many of the doctrines asserted in the following sheets. And it is very evident, that some notions could never have begun so early, as to be extant in the Clementine Liturgy, and yet be so far diffused as to appear in all the Liturgies here cited, if they had not had one common original, and that in the first times of Christianity ; for though none but the Clementine is truly ancient, yet the same series of the consecratory and more
PREFATORY EPISTLE. 33
solemn oblatory part of the service, their agreement in invo- cating the Holy Ghost, and in the end for which it is in- voked, and in their intercessions or propitiations for others, is a demonstration, that as to these particulars, they were all formed by one rule and with one and the same view, and by hands directed as it were by the very same mind and soul ; for as to these matters, they scarce differ in thought, but in words only. There are indeed many gross additions and in- terpolations in all the Liturgies except that of St. Clement, and yet among such heaps of rubbish the reader may observe the true remains of antiquity sparkling in his eyes here and there in every one of them.
When I had made such collections from antiquity as I thought sufficient, I set myself to draw a scheme of the Eu- charistical Sacrifice, according to the doctrine and judgment of the ancients, without regard to what others, or I myself, had formerly said on this subject. And I soon discovered an excellent harmony of the ancients among themselves as to this matter. I had an especial eye and regard to the Cle- mentine Liturgy, and found that some things which at first seemed very odd, yet by consulting that were made plain and very intelligible. This I look upon as the only certain plan upon which we can form a judgment concerning every part of the primitive Eucharist and Sacrifice, and of the series and connection of every part with the whole.
I must confess too, that in some particulars I discovered that the assertors of the Sacrifice did not exactly agree with the ancients. The most observable particular is this, that in the primitive Church there was but one direct, solemn, vocal, sacerdotal oblation of the bread and wine, and that imme- diately after the words of institution; whereas we have gene- rally affirmed an ante-oblation of them. But since I cannot find any certain evidence of any other oblation of them, otherwise than as the representatives of Christ’s Body and Blood ; therefore I have thought fit to declare, that I see no grounds or reason to insist any longer on more than one ob- lation strictly so called. It may be said, that the bread and wine were offered by being placed on the Altar by the cele- brator, and this I do not deny; but I suppose this could not be called the oblation of bread and wine, or the oblation of the
JOHNSON. D
34 PREFATORY EPISTLE,
Eucharist, because other things beside the bread and wine were sometimes so offered. This could not be that new oblation of the New Testament spoken of by Irenzeus, for that holy Father tells us that Christ taught us that oblation when He said, “This is My Body,” &c., whereas the accepting the bread and wine from the hand of the lay-offerer and placing them on the Altar, was an action performed before, and in order to this more solemn sacerdotal oblation. And since the ancients speak but of one oblation in the Eucharist, and the Clementine Liturgy contains but one form of making this oblation, therefore I conceive that when in former books we made mention of two several oblations, we followed the scent which we took from later Liturgies, rather than the doctrine and practice of the truly primitive Church.
And let no man think that this frank confession of mine is any real prejudice to the cause, in the defence of which I am engaged, till he can shew that in any other cause, whether phi- losophical, juridical, or theological, where any number of advo- cates have written or spoken on the same side, there has not been some small dissonance in their pleas or arguings, or im the modifying or circumstantiating of them. And if the Sacrifice must be exploded on this account, I know no doc- trine in the whole Bible so sacred, no truth im other sciences so evident, but that it is liable to the same objection ; and if therefore this doctrine shall be thought worthy to be dis- carded on this account, I know not what doctrine can be safe.
And if two several acts of oblation, properly so called, be allowed, I apprehend no manner of danger to the Sacrifice itself on this account. When the lay-votary presented any animal to be sacrificed at the Jewish altar, this presentation of it might be called an oblation, and is so very often in the Scripture ; so was the sprinkling the blood, the laying the animal on the altar, and the burning it in part or whole; and yet all this process was but one sacrificial celebrity, though it consisted of several sacrificial actions. So it is very evident that the presenting the bread and wine, or placing them on the Altar, may well enough be called an oblation ; and if this action be attended with oblatory words, as it is in the later Liturgies,
PREFATORY EPISTLE. 35
I see no reason to blame this practice, especially since it is of very considerable antiquity, though not perfectly primitive. And the chief end which I promise to myself by this observa- tion, is to render the Sacrifice, as spoken of by the most an- cient writers, more clear and intelligible, and my proofs upon this head the more unexceptionable ; for though the primitive writers do often call the layman’s part in bringing his material offerings by the name of an oblation, as the law of Moses like- wise did; and though the celebrator’s placing them on the Lord’s Table, be now commonly and properly enough said to be anoblationof them; yet the most proper Eucharistical sacer- dotal oblation was always spoken of as one only in the most primitive writers. And that there was but one such oblation in the Clementine Liturgy, and that therefore the making but one oblation, and that by way of commemoration, is the most ancient method, that Liturgy itself is an irrefragable demonstration ; and it is not worth while to dispute whether the presentation of them on the Altar was looked upon as a part of this one solemn oblation, or only as an action neces- sary in order to the other. It is sufficient for my purpose to observe, that they are never mentioned as two several obla- tions in the most early monuments of antiquity.
And by this, my Lord, I am insensibly brought to say something in relation to the censure your Lordship was pleased to pass, in your Charge, upon the author of the Clergy- man’s Vade Mecum. I can sincerely declare, that my only intention in affirming, as I did in the note on the second Apostolical Canon, “that bread and wine are actually to be offered to God, by the direction of the Church of England by virtue of the Rubric, immediately before the prayer ‘For the whole state of Christ’s Church,’ and in and by that prayer,” was to do justice to our constitution, and to represent our Church and Liturgy as conformable to the ancient model as in truth I could, according to the best of my knowledge. Your Lordship is pleased to resent this as an affront and in- jury done to the Church of England; lest therefore I should again incur your Lordship’s displeasure upon this account, I have wholly forborne, in the following treatise, any intimation of the Church of England’s agreeing, or not agreeing, with the primitive Church, in the doctrine or practice of the
D2
36 PREFATORY EPISTLE.
Sacrifice; and have entirely left it to my reader to reflect under every head, how far our Church symbolizes with the primitive, or comes short of her. Nay, I have in the second edition of the second part of the Vade Mecum, omitted that paragraph which your Lordship has censured ; not that I am not fully persuaded that the Church does, by the clause in- serted into the prayer for the Church Militant, intend an oblation of the bread and wine, but because, upon maturer. thoughts, I am perfectly convinced that the oblation meant in that canon is the commemorative oblation of the bread and wine, following after the words of institution in the an- cient Liturgies, and not any previous oblation of the bread. and wine, apart from the other lay-offerings.
But, my Lord, I cannot but express the sense I have of your severity toward me, in passing by other authors who have said the same thing in effect that I there do, and singling out so indifferent a writer as myself to bear the marks of your displeasure. Your Lordship has acquitted me from being any of the “chief promoters of this opinion;” for of these you are pleased to say, “ that they are of the late sepa- ration‘,” meaning, I suppose, the non-jurors, of which num- ber I never was ; and the most incomparably learned Bishop Bull was alive when your Charge was delivered to the clergy, though he died about the time of the publication of it. Now whether your Lordship acted a generous part in choosing to condemn my book, who was the least capable of making a defence, I submit to your own consideration. And, my Lord, that in giving sentence against me, you condemned one of those English Bishops for whose memory you have the greatest honour, I am very sure you must yourself confess ; I do not mean Bishop Bull, but Bishop Patrick ; for though I can truly say that I did not learn this notion of the bread and wine being to be offered according to our Liturgy from that very learned Prelate, yet he that reads what I am now going to cite from him, and compares it with my note on the second Apostolical Canon in the first edition, would be apt to suspect me of a plagium. “The spiritual sacrifice of our- selves, and the corporal sacrifice of our goods to God, may teach the Papists that we are sacrificers as well-as they, and
ς Page 5.
PREFATORY EPISTLE. 37
are made kings and priests unto God; yea, they may know, that the bread and wine of the Eucharist is an offering out of the stock of the whole congregation to this service, accord- ing as it was in the times of the primitive Church.” And, my Lord, this book was published by Mr. Patrick while he was “minister of God’s Word,” as he styles himself, at Bat- tersea in Surrey; and the Epistle Dedicatory bears date January, 1659; so that it was no crime in that age, and in so moderate a divine as Mr. Patrick, to say that bread and wine were offered according as it was in the primitive ’ Church*. Nor did he alter his opinion as to this particular, after he became an eminent divine in the Church of Eng- land; nay, I think, he justifies all that your Lordship is pleased to censure in my book, in the followimg words: “ It is not common bread and wine which the ancients prayed might become the Body and Blood of Christ to them, but bread and wine first sanctified by being offered to Him with thanksgiving.—This is to be understood when you see bread and wine set on God’s Table by him that ministers in this Divine Service; then it is offered to God, for whatsoever is solemnly placed there becomes by that means a thing dedi- cated and appropriated to Him.—And if you observe the time when this bread is ordered to be placed there, which is immediately after the alms of the people have been received for the poor, you will see it is intended by our Church to be a thankful oblation to God of the fruits of the earth.—Desir- ing God to accept of these gifts as a small token of their grateful sense that they hold all they have of Him, as the great Lord of the world. And so we are taught to do in that prayer which immediately follows im our Liturgy, wherein we humbly beseech Him to accept, not only our alms but also our oblations; these are things distinct. And the former, ‘alms,’ signifying that which is given for the relief of the poor ; the latter, ‘oblations,’ can signify nothing else, accord- ing to the language of the ancient Church, but this bread and wine.” And now, my Lord, I crave leave to say, that there was much greater reason for your Lordship to censure Bishop Patrick’s Christian Sacrifice, in the 77th page of which book, (the ninth edition,) these words are to be found, than the poor
4 See Mensa Mystica, first edition, p. 44.
38 PREFATORY EPISTLE.
Clergyman’s Vade Mecum ; not only on account of the learn- ing, dignity, and authority of the person who wrote it, but be- cause it is certain that the Christian Sacrifice had come into more hands when your Lordship was pleased to pass this censure, than it was credible that the Vade Mecum ever can ; for the only reason hinted by your Lordship for making this reflection on the book last mentioned is, that “it was de- signed to come into every clergyman’s hands.” This learned Bishop does not only agree with the Vade Mecum in the main, that bread and wine are or ought to be offered, but that by being placed on the table they become dedicated and appropriated to God ; and this he says to prove that the bread and wine are offered to Him: so that this great man supposes, as I did when I wrote that note, that the bread and wine is offered, or presented to God, by being placed there by the hands of the Priest ; which is what your Lord- ship charges on me, “as a misrepresentation of the Rubric, and an assertion contrary to the Rubric.” I own that in the Rubric itself the word ‘ place’ only refers to the bread and wine, ‘present’ to the alms. But though the bread and wine are not directed to be presented in the Rubric, yet they are actually presented in the following Prayer, except it can be made appear that in any oblatory prayer the word obla- tions be so used as to exclude the bread and wine. I must confess that if I had expected so severe a Censor as your Lordship, I ought to have expressed myself with greater cau- tion. And yet I will hereby oblige myself, whenever your Lordship is pleased to call for it, to present you with several citations from the most accomplished human writers, in which there is the same, or greater, liberty of expression used, as there is by me in this passage, not excepting your Lordship’s own works. I was once thinking to imsert some instances of this sort; but I shall at present spare your Lordship’s patience, for 1 delight not in such reprisals, nor is it my business to justify my own writings or reputation, so much as the cause and doctrine the defence whereof I have undertaken. I shall say no more on this head, but that I am perfectly astonished to observe that Mr. Patrick could, in the times of confusion, so far emancipate himself from vulgar prejudices as to see and publicly declare for a material obla-
PREFATORY EPISTLE. 39
tion of bread and wine; and that after the review of our Liturgy, he should understand the words of the Rubric and the oblations in the following Prayer, as they were un- doubtedly meant, of the Eucharistical elements; nay, that Richard Baxter himself could say, that “in the consecration the Church doth offer the creatures of bread and wine to be accepted by God to this sacred use;” and that “ministers are the agents of the people to God in offering or dedicating the creatures®;” and yet that a Priest of the Church of Eng- land, at a time when the Church was voted out of danger, should, in the most public manner, incur the censure of a Bishop of that Church only for saying the same thing which they had done. I readily acknowledge, my Lord, that this oblation of the bread and wine does not constitute the Eu- charist a proper Sacrifice in the sense of the primitive Church, nor come up to that notion which I have asserted in the following sheets; and therefore I do not claim either Bishop Patrick or Mr. Baxter as witnesses to the Eucharistic Sacrifice, properly so called; I only produce them as declar- ing for me in that particular for which I stand condemned in your Lordship’s Charge.
Bishop Patrick was a man well read in all parts of divinity, and I cannot but observe to your Lordship, that in the above-written citation from his Christian Sacrifice, he argues for the signification of the word ‘oblations,’ from the “universal language of the ancient Church.” And I cannot but take an occasion here to express my wishes that this were better un- derstood ; for it is certain that the greatest obstacle to the doctrine of the Sacrifice is, that the men of this age cannot easily, by a spiritual, rational, unbloody, intellectual sacri- fice, understand an oblation of bread and wine, considered as the representative Body and Blood of Christ. By a Sacri- fice of thanksgiving, of praise, of commemoration, they can conceive nothing to be meant but what is verbal and mental. It is one main design of these papers to apply a remedy to this disease, and if I am successful in this particular, I have no reason to doubt of carrying my cause, and obtaining the verdict of all equal judges. Our adversaries cannot but be sensible that they have a great advantage of us in this parti-
ε See Append. to Christian Priesthood, p. 320.
40 PREFATORY EPISTLE.
cular, for there is a strange unaccountable magic in the sound of words, and they who have the vulgar signification of them on their own side, may enchant and charm the gene- rality of people into their own opinions, whatever they are. Your Lordship’s own Order was in the last age run down by this sort of fascination. Prelacy was the fatal word which drove my Lords the Bishops first out of the House of Peers, and then out of their churches. It is certain that the im- parity of orders, which Christ instituted in His Chureh, can- not be better expressed than by the word Prelacy, and the Greek word ἡγούμενοι, which denotes Bishops, Heb. xiii. 17, cannot be more aptly rendered by any English noun than by Prelates ; but they who-then had the people at their disposal, first clapped an ill signification upon the word, as importing the Popish hierarchy, or something very like it, and then applied it to the governors of the Church of England, and by virtue of that wrong application subverted the government and the Church at once. This may serve for one instance to prove of what dangerous consequence it is to permit people to run away with the mistaken sense of a word; and they that in- dulge themselves in such errors, which at first sight seem very small, may by this means be led into very mischievous conclusions.
I must further add, my Lord, that it is of great use to all divines to understand the language not only of the truly ancient Church, but even of that of the middle and darker ages. If I had been better acquainted with the liturgies of those times, I might when I wrote the postscript to ‘The Propitiatory Oblation,’ have laid before your Lordship clear evidence, that when you take the word offertory to signify the act of oblation or the things offered, you give such a sense to that word as those Liturgies from whence our Re- formers took it, never do. I have indeed in that postscript given sufficient proof even from our own reformed Liturgies, that offertory denotes the sentences sung or said while the alms and devotions of the people are collected. And now, my Lord, give me leave to add, that I have further authority for this signification of that word. In Pope Gregory’s Sacra- mentary, printed at Paris, 1642, are these words; Postmo- dum legitur Evangelium, deinde offertorium ; “afterwards the
PREFATORY EPISTLE. 41
Gospel is read, then the Offertory :Ὁ on which words Menar- dus, the editor, has this note; Offertorium antiphona est, que dum caneretur, populus sua dona in altari offerebat juxta anti- quum morem': “The offertory is an antiphone, and while that was sung the people made their oblations at the Altar, according to the ancient custom.” In the old Liturgy pub- lished by Father Mabillon, are these words; Tum antiphona post Evangelium. Mabillon explains the word antiphona thus ; Nos, scilicet in ordine Romano, offertorium vocamus, “We, in the Roman order, call this the offertorys.”” And Du Fresne in his Glossary says, “ Offerenda and offertorium are the same, and signify what is sung inter offerendum*, while the people make their oblations.” Cardinal Bona, in his 66th page of his first book Rerum Liturgicarum, in giving an account of St. Am- brose’s Liturgy, calls that Antiphona post Evangelium, (for the Creed was not rehearsed after the Gospel in that age,) which Mabillon calls offertorium. Other examples might be produced (if these were not sufficient) from Amalarius and Micrologus.
If Dr. Hancock had consulted these Liturgies he would never have been so far transported as to say that by “ then” in the Rubric, which orders the Priest to place the bread and wine on the Lord’s Table, we are to understand, “when there is a Communion.” For by a diligent perusal of them he would have found that the stated time for doing this was immediately after the offertory. The first book of Ed- ward VI. directed the Priest to place the bread on the cor- poras, or paten, and to put the wine in the chalice, or other vessel, as soon as these sentences had been sung or said. The present Rubric enforces the ancient practice of the Priest’s placing the Eucharistical elements on the Holy Table precisely at this same time. And those incumbents, or curates, who leave this office to be performed by some lay- man, are guilty of non-conformity not only to the Church of England, but to the whole Catholic Church of Christ in the purest ages. For even in Justin Martyr’s time, the ele- ments were offered to the president or celebrator, who taking
f Page 582. Ὁ Offertorium, idea quod offerenda. & Vid. Mabillon de Liturgia Galli- Cantus qui inter offerendum cantatur. cana, at Paris, 1685, p. 8.
42 PREFATORY EPISTLE.
them from the hands of the deacon or other idoneous person, presented them on the Altar, and then proceeded in the Eu- charistical Service’. I might enlarge here, but the learned Dr. Nicols hath saved me that trouble, to whose note on this Rubric I refer my reader; but I the rather took notice of this because your Lordship’s Clergy being assured by your Charge that Dr. Hancock’s book is written “with good learn- ing and judgment,” may from thence conclude that it is left to their discretion how or when to place the bread and wine on the Lord’s Table.
In another particular I cannot but think Dr. Nicols much mistaken ; that is, in saying in his notes on the Prayer of Consecration, that the Church has not determined whether the Priest shall say that prayer standing or kneeling. Nay, he is not content with this, but goes so far as to say that “since it is a prayer, the posture of kneeling is most proper.” That kneeling is the most proper posture for the people in prayer may be allowed, but if it be so for the Priest too, our Church is much to blame. For even in the matrimonial office, when the bridegroom and bride are come to the Com- munion Table, the Priest is expressly ordered to “ stand,” they to “ kneel,” while the prayers there are rehearsed. And in the Rubric before the prayer which immediately follows after the contract, the bridegroom and bride are directed to “kneel,” but not the Priest ; and indeed it is very improper for him to kneel, because that prayer is a benediction. And as to the main of the Communion Service, there is no ques- tion but that standing is the most proper posture for the Priest. At the beginning of the Service the Rubric expressly commands him “ to stand at the north side of the Table, and to say the Lord’s Prayer and the Collect following, the people kneeling ;” and he is likewise directed to say the two Collects between the Commandments and the Epistle, “ standing as before.” The absolution, the following sentences, the sursum corda, and trisagium, are, I suppose, without all question to be pronounced standing; and yet this absolution itself is precatory. The question is not what is the most proper pos- ture for prayer in general, but what is the most proper
* See Appendix A.
PREFATORY EPISTLE. 43
posture for a Priest in offerimg or blessing the sacramental bread and wine. And here I conceive it ought to be con- sidered :
I. That it is contrary to the practice of all Churches, both ancient and modern, East and West, Popish and Reformed, for the Priest to kneel in making the oblation, or performing the consecration. If there be one single precedent for it, it is more than I am aware of.
II. It is inconsistent with the solemn action which he is now performing. For I apprehend that the common notions of mankind do all agree in this, that a sacred officer in mak- ing an oblation or conferring a benediction, is to use this posture of standing. So that if he be not allowed to be offer- ing a sacrifice, yet except it be denied that he is blessing the bread and wine, he ought not to kneel.
III. I cannot but believe that the Priest is by our Rubric required to stand while he performs this most solemn part of his office. For, lst. That he is to stand while he is ordering the bread and wine, is self-evident ; and when he has ordered the bread and wine, he is presently directed to say the Prayer of Consecration. Now since he was before in a standing pos- ture, he is not to alter this posture till he is directed so to do; and since the Rubric gives no intimation of making any such change of posture, I humbly conceive that he is to continue standing. 2ndly. The Rubric, till the Restoration, was, “ the Priest standing shall say ;” and there is no appearance or probability that the Convocation intended any alteration in this particular ; and it is irrational to suppose that the governors of the Church intended to leave it to the Priest’s discretion, whether he would use that posture which had hitherto been used upon this occasion in our own Church as well as all others, or whether he would choose a new one. And, 3rdly, I apprehend that the very words of the Rubric are a direct order to the Priest to stand in performing the consecration. They are these; “ When the Priest standing before the Table, hath so ordered the bread and wine, that he may with the more readiness and decency break the bread before the peo- ple, and take the cup into his hands, he shall say the prayer of consecration as follows.” For that the incidental proposition, “standing before the Table,” relates to the Priest only while
44. PREFATORY EPISTLE.
he is ordering the bread and wine, and not while he says the prayer, I cannot conceive. The natural construction of the words seems to me to be this, that “ the Priest standing be- before the Table shall order,” &c., and he, the same Priest, “ standing before the Table shall say.” For I can see no doubt, but that the Priest is to stand before the Table, while he consecrates. What those words, “before the Table,” may import, I dare not say; but shall submit that and every thing else to your Lordship’s judgment. And though this be not clear, yet the word “standing” is ; and I think Dr. Nicols to have used too much liberty in attempting to expound away the plain meaning of it.
I beg your Lordship’s pardon for using this freeness to a person of your character, who by the laws of the Church Catholic and of the Church of England, are one of those who have the sole authority, under the Primate, to determine the sense of all doubtful Rubrics. But I must confess I do not apprehend that these Rubrics are at all doubtful in themselves ; but there is nothing so plain but that disputatious men may endeavour to puzzle and obscure them. And 1 am so far from any design of entrenching upon the prerogative of my Lords the Bishops on this account, that if my Diocesan and Primate, upon an application regularly made to him, should think fit to determine, that every Priest may place the bread and wine on the Holy Table at any time of the Communion Service that pleases him best, or that he may either stand or kneel while he says the Consecration Prayer, then it must be owned that the Clergy within this province are under no obligation to place the bread and wine on the Table at the end of the offertory, and that the Priest is not tied to stand at the consecration; and yet I should, notwithstanding this, humbly be of opinion that the words imply no such latitude in either case. But if any lawful judge do explain a law contrary to the meaning and intendment of it, that explanation is, I sup- pose, authoritative until it be overruled or superseded by some superior power. But all that appear as advocates in any cause, have liberty to allege their reasons against such interpretations, especially before such interpretations have been publicly pronounced e Cathedré. At least, I conceive, I have as just a right to plead for the true meaning of these
PREFATORY EPISTLE. 45
Rubrics, as Dr. Hancock and Dr. Nicols for that which I am persuaded is a wrong one.
And now, my Lord, I shall detain you no longer, but only to beg your pardon if any thing said by me in this epistle or elsewhere, seem to be expressed with more warmth or resent- ment than becomes me. I am one that never studied the arts of address, nor was ever solicitous to please any man by any other method but that of saying what I believed to be the truth, whether in season or out of season. I question not but I may have been guilty of several oversights in lesser matters, and that in my style and choice of words I very much need a corrector ; but if any man shall take me to task upon these accounts, I shall not think myself obliged to answer him.
The argumentative part of my discourse, on which the main cause depends, is that for which alone I am greatly concerned ; and if any man attack that part of my book, and do it im such a manner as becomes a scholar and one that understands the subject on which he writes, an answer will not be wanting if God grant me life and health. Andif I die, yet I trust in God this noble truth will always find a succession of defenders; and if I should mistake in this presage, yet I shall think it much more honourable in the sight of God and my ever-blessed Redeemer, and of all truly judicious Christians, to be considered as the last Priest of this Church that ever wrote in defence of the primitive Sacri- fice, than to have been the first Bishop that ever wrote against it. However, I dare say of all those who have of late years declared for the Sacrifice, as Origen did of himself and the Christians of his age, in words borrowed in part from St. Paul, Heb. x. 23, “ We hold fast the optation as long as we live.” With this resolution I take leave to subscribe myself, Your Lordship’s
as in duty bound,
J.J. May 18, 1713.
46 PREFATORY EPISTLE.
PO's US Cire:
When your Lordship published the first edition of your Charge, ‘The Propitiatory Oblation’ was in the press, and well near finished; ‘The Unbloody Sacrifice’ was in the printer’s hands, and this epistle ready for the press a considerable time before your second edition appeared, by which means I have been obliged to consider both the editions of your Charge in a postscript.
Your Lordship’s only argument, which seemed to me of any force to prove that the word ‘ oblation’ in the Prayer for the Church Militant, did not signify bread and wine, was this, that “there might be an offertory without a Communion.” This I readily acknowledged, but shewed at the same time that your Lordship’s supposition that offertory signified the materials to be offered, was without any good grounds; for I alleged a Rubric of the first Common Prayer-Book of Edward VI. which directs the offertory to be sung by the clerks, and it is certain that money or any other material thing cannot be sung. And further I observed, that in our present Rubric after the Communion Service, there is mention of money given at the offertory, from which I inferred that the money or other material thing given by way of devotion could not be the offertory itself. Your Lordship in your second edition has added some paragraphs, in which you are pleased to confess, that “the offertory is in strict speaking the name or title of the service that relates to the offerings or things given*.” And yet even in this second edition you continue to assert as in the first, that “the matter of the offertory is money!.” My Lord, I crave leave to say, and I have fully proved, that the matter of the offertory is nothing but the words or sentences to be said or sung. Your Lordship ac- knowledges, as above cited, that it is “the service relating to the offerings,” therefore not the offerimgs themselves. You are pleased to say, that “where you use it for the things themselves, you take care not to be misunderstood,” by which I suppose your Lordship means that you have ex- plained it in the second edition, by saying that it signifies
k Page 22. 1 Page 20.
PREFATORY EPISTLE. 47
the service. I hope your Lordship does not mean that it comprises both the money and the service, and yet nothing else can reconcile these two propositions: and if they cannot otherwise be reconciled, I must leave the difficulty to your Lordship; for it is beyond my ability to prove that money put into a basin can be sung or said.
However, your Lordship can by no means allow that this name belongs to the sentences only, as this author (meaning the writer of ‘The Propitiatory Oblation’) restrains it; now I crave leave to say, that I have not at all restrained the use of this word, but take it as I find it in the Liturgy of Edward VL., and that which is now used in our Church. Nor did the compilers of these Liturgies restrain it ; for it is evident from the citations in the foregoing epistle, that the word offerto- rium, as there used, signified nothing more nor less than the sentences of Scripture sung or said on this occasion, many hundred years before the reign of Edward VI. It seems to me that your Lordship is pleased to enlarge the signification of it, because I have nowhere found it to import what you assert it to do.
But I will consider your Lordship’s reason for extending the signification of this word, and that is as follows: “ For the very act of offering is doubtless a part of the offertory service, as it gives the name to the whole; the presenting what is offered upon the Table is another; and I believe it will be thought that the beseeching God to accept it is not the least considerable in this matter.” Now, my Lord, this takes that for granted which is the point in dispute, viz. that the offertory is not the sentences; for if the offertory and sentences are the same, then there is an offertory when these sentences are read or sung, though nothing be given, pre- sented, or recommended to the Divine acceptance, and this is indeed the truth of the matter. And to give full demonstration of this over and above what has been already said, I will lay before your Lordship another Rubric of Edward the Sixth’s Liturgy, which stands just before these sentences; viz. “Then shall follow for the Offertory one or moe of these sentences of H. Scripture, to be song whiles the people dooe offer, or else one of theim to be saied by the Minister immediately afore the offeryng.” By this it appears that the offertory
48 PREFATORY EPISTLE.
might be either during the offering, viz. if the offertory were sung, and so there were time for the people to make their offerings while the clerks were singing it, or it might be be- fore the offering, viz. if the minister only read one sentence, which in this case was the offertory, or for the offertory. In both cases the offertory and the act of offermg were two dis- tinct things; and by this Liturgy the alms were not to be presented on the Table, nor was there any prayer for their acceptance ; so that offertory is here used exclusively of all the three actions here specified by your Lordship. Let me further observe, that “offertory service” is a word new coined by your Lordship, and though I own your authority to be sufficient to coin a word, and to stamp what signification you please upon it, yet, my Lord, you need not be told that our Liturgy has no such word, nor any other Liturgy that I have seen, and so your reasonings upon it affect no Rubrics of the Church. I take leave further to observe, that though the offertory, according to this Liturgy of Edward VI. and all other Liturgies, was nothing but the sentences, yet the value of the bread and wine is said to be offered in these words, viz. “The parishioners of every parishe shall offre every Sunday the just valour and pryce of the holy lofe at the time of the offertory ; where still the offertory and the offering are made things clearly distinct from each other.
If by “offertory service” you mean no more than what the Church does by the offertory, it is evident that nothing can be meant but the sentences sung or said; for the Church always supposes an offertory when the Communion Service is read, but cannot in reason suppose that every Sunday or Holiday something shall be offered in every church. And to give further proof of this, it is observable, that as these sentences are most commonly called the offertory, so some- times the vessel in which the bread was put passed by the same name, of which see Mabillon de Liturg. Gall. p. 185.™ And your Lordship might argue upon this vessel just as you do upon the sentences, viz. the very act of offering is doubt-
™ Ad oblatas excipiendas inserviebat offertorium: colum verd seu colato- rium ad Vinum expurgandum. Offer- toria vasa erant a Patinis distincta, in que populus Panem oblatum ad Altare
deponebat; quz primo solida erant, deinde linea, seu sericea, aut ex quali- bet simili materia: Unum aureum, alia argentea memorat vetus Chronicon Frontanellense in cap. 16.
PREFATORY EPISTLE. 49
less a part of the offertory, the presenting what is offered another, and the beseeching God to accept it a third; and you might as truly say, that the act of offering gives name to the vessel, of old called offertorium, as that it now gives name to what you are pleased to call the “ offertory-service.” Yet I fancy few would by this be convinced that the vessel itself implied or contained the act of offering, or the present- ing the oblations, or the prayer for the Divine acceptance. Nay, all would easily perceive that the vessel, as well as the sentences, were the offertory, though not one mite or crumb of bread were put into the one, or one farthing given at the rehearsal of the other. And this may be sufficient also to shew that to argue from names or etymologies, as your Lord- ship here does, can do very little service to any cause.
If your Lordship still persist that the offertory takes in the Prayer for the Church Militant, I take leave to add that it must take in also the placing the Bread and Wine on the Holy Table, except you will suppose that the offertory-service breaks off at the end of these sentences, and then begins de novo with the Prayer for the Church Militant, and so in effect make two offertories in order to avoid the oblation of bread and wine. And if the placing the Bread and Wine on the Lord’s Table be part of the offertory, then, according to your Lordship’s own argument, it is to be offered, and presented, and recommended to the Divine acceptance; and using the word “ place” instead of “ offer” or “ present,” is no sufficient objection against this sense; for I conceive there is no occasion for me to point out those particular places, where the very ac- tion of offering the blood, which was the most essential action of offering the Jewish sacrifice, is by the English rendered ‘put- ting the blood,’ by the Latin ponere sanguinem, by the Greek ἐπιτιθέναι αἷμα, the Hebrew Nathan admitting of this rendi- tion, because it signifies either, ‘to give, present, put, or place.’
And, my Lord, the truth is, I know not whether you do after all persist in making the inserted clause of God’s “ accepting our alms and oblations” a part of the offertory, or not; for in the first paragraph of your addition”, you seem to promise that you will “give me satisfaction,’ that the clause inserted in the Prayer for the Church Militant “is the
» Page 22.
JOHNSON. E
0 PREFATORY EPISTLE.
or
offertory,” and what follows looks the same way, if I under- stand it; in the third paragraph of this page you say ex- pressly, that “this prayer immediately attends upon the offertory,” and therefore I should think were a thing distinct from it; for if the thing attending be the same with the thing attended, and if your Lordship upon recollection will justify it, then all arguing is at an end.
Your Lordship justly suspects that what you had before laid down would “be thought too much to be granted,” and you yourself I believe are by this time of the same mind; for it is evident you demand that to be granted that subverts your own hypothesis, viz. that the Prayer for the Church Militant “attends the offertory ;’? and, my Lord, that the Prayer for the Church Miltant, or the inserted clause, is either the offertory or a part of the offertory, is too much to grant except there were some appearance of proof.
You insist “that the most obvious and reasonable interpre- tation of these words, ‘ Accept our alms and oblations,’ is to be had from considering what offerings there is any mention made of in the office immediately preceding, and those are confessed to relate only to the Minister and poor, which in the Scotch Liturgy are expressly called oblations.” Here your Lordship, by “the office immediately preceding,” must mean the offertory sentences, for of them only it is confessed that they relate only to the Minister and poor. You cannot mean the placing the bread and wine on the Holy Table, though that mdeed “immediately precedes” the prayer, for these I am sure you would not have called offerings; and if these sentences be an “ office,” what other name can you give it but the “offertory office?” and if the sentences be the offer- tory office, then the Prayer for the Church Militant is no part of it.
In the next paragraph your Lordship proceeds thus; “ He who considers that the Scotch Liturgy was made upon ours by several alterations and additions under Archbishop Laud’s own hand, and that great regard was had to these in the review of the Liturgy, 1661, will I believe agree with me, that the prayer to God to accept our alms and oblations respects those offerings only which the foregoing sentences exhort us to make.” We own, my Lord, that during the offertory
PREFATORY EPISTLE. 51
nothing is to be given but money, or other materials for charitable or pious uses; after the offertory the Bread and Wine are placed on the table, and, as we believe, in order to be solemnly offered by the Priest. But I cannot but express my surprise to observe that your Lordship would enforce what you here say, by observing that “at the review of our Liturgy, 1661,” when the clause in dispute was inserted, “ sreat regard was had to the alterations and additions made with Archbishop Laud’s own hand,” and which he had made in order to insert them into the Scotch Liturgy; for, my Lord, the greater regard was had to the alterations and addi- tions made with Archbishop Laud’s own hand, the more sure we are that bread and wine were designed to be offered, for this was one particular on which Archbishop Laud and his friends did always insist. It is evident they did not shew their regard to Archbishop Laud’s alterations by ordering the elements to be “offered up” before the Prayer for the Church Militant, as the Scotch Liturgy did, nor by calling the alms ‘oblations’ (for that remains yet to be proved, my Lord) ; it remains, therefore, that they paid this regard by ordering both alms and bread and wine to be offered together in the inserted clause. It was a poor regard indeed, if it only consisted in calling the alms ‘oblations;? the most proper regard was paid by causing the elements to be offered to God, which was the principal thing the good Archbishop in- tended in the alterations to be made in this part of the Com- munion office. I cannot persuade myself that your Lordship can look on these arguings in the second edition, especially when compared with those in the first, as sufficient finally to determine your judgment.
It must be owned, that the Rubric next after the blessing in the Post-communion service, calls the following prayers Collects to be said after the Offertory, when there is no Communion; and from hence your Lordship would con- clude, that the Prayer for the Whole Estate, &c. is part of the offertory, because these collects are universally read after that prayer; but
1. The reader will take notice, that this title was first given to these collects by the first book of Edward VI., and then it properly belonged to them; for,
E 2
52 PREFATORY EPISTLE.
2. By this first book of King Edward, the Prayer for the Whole Estate was not to be read when there was no com- munion ; and therefore these collects were at such times im- mediately to follow the sentences or offertory.
3. If the Prayer for the Whole Estate had been to be read at such times by that book of King Edward, yet it could not have been part of the offertory ; not only because this prayer then stood at a greater distance from the sentences, viz. between the Trisagium and the Prayer of Consecration, but because there were then no oblatory words in that prayer; “accept our alms” was added, when this prayer was removed irom its former place to that where it now stands; “and oblations” was added at the Restoration.
4, We now read the Prayer for the Whole Estate, when there is no communion, not by virtue of the Rubric next after the blessing and before the collects, but by virtue of the Rubric next after the collects, which runs thus ; “ Upon the Sundays and other holidays, if there be no communion, shall be said all that is appointed at the Communion, until the end of the General Prayer for the good Estate of Christ’s Church, together with one or more of these collects last be- fore rehearsed ;” and this Rubric was not in the first book of Edward the Sixth.
The consequence is very clear, viz. that the title given to these prayers was very proper according to the first book of Edward the Sixth; for by that these collects were to be said immediately after the offertory, when there was no Com- munion; the title now belongs to them but very improperly ; they are still indeed to be said after the offertory, but not immediately next after it, as formerly, for the Prayer for the Whole Estate comes between. Your Lordship’s argument is grounded upon a misnomer, and therefore I dare presume that you will no longer insist upon it.
Cranbrook, Oct? 17: 1718.
A NECESSARY
ADVERTISEMENT TO THE READER.
Tue authorities made use of in this treatise are rarely printed in the original Greek or Latin, either in the text, or in the margin of the book itself; excepting only such as re- late to some collateral point, and not to the main controversy, or some citations ex abundanti, and which I met with after I had finished my first design, and which I have occasion to mention but once; but lest my reader should suspect my fidelity, he is to observe,
I. That he has all the authorities from the Fathers, Coun- cils, and Liturgies, on which the stress of my argument lies, printed in the Appendix in the original Greek or Latin; and whenever I cite any of these, I do not only give my reader the translation of the words in English, but refer him to the page of my Appendix where the original Greek or Latin is to be found, and not only to the page, but the letter by which that citation is marked or distinguished in that page, to which the reference is made; and if the words to which I refer stand above three or four lines from the beginning of that citation, then I further refer my reader to the line of that citation where the words that I mean stand, or at least begin; thus, when I allege the first citation from St. Cle- ment of Rome, after I have mentioned the name of that Father, I add, (A. p. 1. Ap.) that is, at the letter A, in the first page of my Appendix; but if I cite those words, “ Let every one of you brethren celebrate the Eucharist in his own rank,” I not only put the letter B. the page 1. Ap. but I likewise add, 1. 13, and in the 13th line of that citation the reader will find the Greek words to which I here refer him. If I allege those words of Justin, “‘The Deacons distribute it to every one of those who are present,” I direct him to the Greek by prefixing (A. p. 2,3. Ap. 1. 9.) that is at the letter A. in the second and third page of my Appendix, in the ninth
~
54. ADVERTISEMENT.
line, and there my reader will accordingly meet with the Greek words, for I never refer to the line of the page but of the citation. The reader may think it would have been more for his ease and satisfaction to have had the original citation produced in the text, or margin of the page, where it is alleged, but I thought the course I have taken more eligible.
1. Because very many of my shortest as well as longest citations prove several of the doctrines which are here ad- vanced, and by consequence are often repeated; and I thought it would too much swell the volume to transcribe the citation in the origimal, as often as I had occasion to make use of it, especially if it were somewhat large; the lesser original citations might mdeed have been once for all set down in the margin, and a reference made to that mar- gin, whenever the citation was repeated ; but then my reader must have had the same pains of turning to that margin, which he must now take in turning to the Appendix; and this method would have required my attendance on the press, which my circumstances would not admit of.
2. Several of my citations are very long, and such as I could have no occasion to allege all at once, as that of St. Cyprian’s Epistle to Ceecilius, the first from Gregory Nyssen, several from Irenzeus, that from the Synod of Con- stantinople; but I thought it proper that such large autho- rities, which I produce by piecemeals, should be once for all entirely represented to my reader’s view, that so by the coherence and connection, the learned reader might be more capable of making a judgment of the pertinence of my alle- gations: and indeed these and some other citations seemed somewhat too large to be crowded into a margin.
3. It was especially necessary, that my citations from the Liturgies should at once be proposed to my reader’s view; because some of my arguings depend on the series and con- nection of the several parts of those Liturgies; and I knew no method so proper for the attaining those ends which 1 proposed as that which I have therefore taken.
11. Some citations are here given in English only, as
1. Those which are taken from modern Latin writers; for I thought it would be an unnecessary piece of punctilious- ness to produce the original words of authors whose language
ADVERTISEMENT. 55
is very plain and easy, and their books not so rare to be found as those of the ancients.
2. Some counter-citations taken from the adversaries of the doctrmes which I here defend, are represented in the translation of them, by whom they are alleged ; for the reader will not suspect that our adversaries are partial against themselves.
3. In the proof that John vi. is meant of the Eucharist, there are several citations from Origen’s Homilies produced in English only ; this is done for no other reason, but because these citations are somewhat long, and in which the main cause (that of the Sacrifice) is not directly concerned; and therefore I thought it best in this case to spare my reader’s cost, and not to swell the volume by inserting the Latin.
If there are any other citations in English only, they are so few, or so trite and obvious, that I need make no apology for them.
PREFACE
THE SECOND EDITION.
Iris some comfort to me that I live to see a second edi- tion of a book, of which it is hard to say, whether it cost me more pains in composing, or more patience in bearing the severe censures that have been passed against me for it.
It is now more than ten years since the first publication?. During all this time nothing that deserves the name of an answer hath appeared against it; but only two or three im- potent pamphlets ; a fardel or two of calumny and buffoonery : and now and then a gird in a printed sermon or other dis- course.
The generality of my adversaries have contented them- selves with saying some wild rude things against the doc- trine, or myself, and charging me in general with absurdities or contradictions, which yet they have not been able to point out, however, not to prove.
The most modish and compendious way of confuting my books on this subject, is by saying that the practice of some Churches is no necessary rule for all. Yet no one hath been able to shew us one single Church of two hundred years’ standing, which did not own the Eucharist to be a Sacrifice, and practise it as such. The Gothic Missals may at first sight seem defective as to this particular; but when fully examined and understood, they too give evidence that the most rude and ignorant, as well as the most knowing and best informed Churches of old, did celebrate the Eucharist as a Sacrifice.
The silence of our most able divines against the doctrine of the Sacrifice, or the little notice they have taken of it, may seem a tacit approbation of it. However, if any of them are really adversaries to it, 1 should be glad if they would give the world a specimen of the strongest, or most specious argu-
" (The first Edition came out in 1714; the second (of which the present is a reprint) in 1724. ]
58 PREFACE
ments that can be found against this doctrine. And Tam
persuaded this had been done, if such as are the best judges had any thing to offer on this head, which they thought would bear the test.
I was in hopes I had my wish, when some months since 1 was told by my correspondent at London, that the Reverend Mr. Rymer, in a book of his just then published”, had strongly opposed this doctrine. And it must be confessed that this brother of ours hath acquired a great reputation in this diocese for his learning and good sense. And on this account I honour him, though personally unknown to me. Therefore what he hath said on this head claims a right to be considered by me, with a just regard to his character. I meddle not with any part of his book, excepting that which is supposed to have been particularly aimed against the doc- trine which I assert. He speaks* of Sacraments in general. But I shall consider his words as if they had been meant of the Eucharist only. For what he says of both Sacraments cannot hold, unless it may be applied to the Eucharist as well as to Baptism. |
His fundamental assertion as to this point is in the follow- ing words, viz.
“ A Sacrament is not supposed (in its most essential part) an application made by men to God, but one made to men by God. It is not, in its essential and primary design, a ser- vice whereby men propitiate God. It is a gracious con- descension of God’s by which He converses with men, and exhibits to them spiritual blessings.” Soon after he adds, “God’s part is indeed the whole that is strictly and properly sacramental 4,”
Now, in direct opposition to this, I affirm, that not God (ab- stractedly) but God-Man, or Jesus Christ, is principal in this Sacrament ; that He, as Mediator and partaker of the human nature as well as of the Divine, is the Author of this Sacra- ment; that He therein exhibits His Body and Blood in mystery ; He exhibits them (by the hands of His ministers) as Mediator of the new, everlasting Covenant, and therefore
® A General Representation of Re- © In the first citation.
mae Religion. Printed for Walthoe, * Page 286.
TO THE SECOND EDITION. 59
first to God and then to men, to the whole Christian Church.
Our Saviour hath so expressly declared the Eucharist to be a covenant, that I conceive no judicious Christian can doubt of it. And to enter into covenant, or to renew a cove- nant without a mutual application of the parties concerned, is inconsistent with the nature of the thing. In truth, this Sacrament is a communion between God and man, as abun- dantly appears from the following book, but especially from the second part.
What I have hitherto cited from this author contains only the premisses of his argument. Let us next consider his conclusion, which is comprised in these words of his:
“Tf a Sacrament® exhibits to us some spiritual favour given to us, and is an application made by God to man, then changing the elements in the Lord’s Supper into a material sacrifice of our own, and making them an application of men to God, exhibiting to Him what He is to be understood to exhibit to us, urging this continual remembra=ce on God, not on our own hearts; this is offering up strange fire, it is ex- cluding the Sacrament by the Sacrifice.”
Now here it is to be observed, that the conclusion contains more than the premisses, when both are fairly stated. And I appeal to himself, whether the sum of his premisses as con- tained in his book be not this, that “a Sacrament is principally an application made by God to men,” and whether he did not intend the sum of his conclusion to be this, viz. “ there- fore the Lord’s Supper is not an application made by men to God.” If he did not intend this to be his conclusion, he could not mean any thing at all against the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. And if he did intend this for his conclusion, he meant more than can be found in the premisses. For the premisses only assert that “a Sacrament is principally an application of God to men,” now this does by no means imply that “a Sacrament may not also be an application of men to God : and yet this is the only conclusion that can be of any use to this writer. And that the Eucharist is an application of God to man, and of man to God, is the doctrine at large asserted by me in the following work, and is indeed suffi-
© Pages 297, 298.
60 PREFACE
ciently proved from its being a covenant, as I just before observed.
When our writer asserts that a Sacrament is principally an application of God to man, sure he would not be thought to deny that it is also an application of men to God. Nay, he himself does by implication own that it is so. His words are, “ Herein consists man’s part (of a Sacrament), a most hearty reverence and gratitude, a most affectionate love and devo- tion’.” For how can these be paid without an application of men to God? But Iam sorry that among the good qualities — on man’s part, he should omit the principal, which is faith, and without which the Sacrament cannot be discerned, or perceived to be what it is.
And if application is to be made by men to God in the © Eucharist, then what more proper and solemn manner of doing it can be assigned than that of sacrifice? This is the way by which the patriarchs and all holy men of old were by God instructed to make their most important addresses to — Him. This is the manner by which the primitive Church — offered their devotions to Him. And thus they were taught to do by our blessed Saviour Himself.
Christ, as our Mediator, must first have offered the Sacri- fice of His mysterious Body and Blood to God, before He could exhibit them to His Apostles to be eat and drunk, as pledges, symbols, and seals of the Divine- promises. The blessings must first have been procured from God by sacri- fice, before they could be exhibited to men, as tokens of the Divine favour. As the natural Body and Blood of Christ are the foundation of the Gospel covenant, so the sacramental Body and Blood are substituted instead of the natural; and are therefore first to be presented to the most worthy party in this covenant, the Infinite Granter of all the mercies be- — longing to it ; and then in the next place to the least worthy persons, or the grantees, the whole body of Christian people. Therefore no man need stick to say in opposition to this writer, that the principal or primary part in the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the application of men to God, through the Body and Blood of Christ Jesus.
Our author would have it thought that by asserting the
! Page 387.
TO THE SECOND EDITION. 61
oblation in the Eucharist, we change the elements into a Sacrifice of our own. And when he hath proved that we have not the authority of Christ for making the oblation, we are willing to he under the imputation of counterfeiting Divine institutions.
He aggravates our pretended crime by saying, that “we exclude the Sacrament by the Sacrifice.” These words only shew that he is very angry with us, and, as I humbly con- ceive, without a cause. No man, to my remembrance, hath ever charged us with this crime before this writer; nor will he be able to point out the particular, in which we do impair or mutilate the Eucharist, considered as a Sacrament.
His next article of impeachment against us is, that “ we urge the continual remembrance on God, not on our own hearts.” I suppose he means the remembrance of Christ’s death. I cannot suppose that he argues against us as guilty of a fault in frequently urging on God the remembrance of Christ’s death, because the Church does this three times every week in the Litany. And I suppose all good Chris- tians often do this in their private prayers, when they enforce them through the death, merits, or satisfaction of Christ Jesus. Therefore the fault he means must consist in not urging the remembrance of Christ’s death “on our own hearts.” If he knew the man that is wanting in this point, let him declare his name, and set a mark upon him. I amas ready as he can be to condemn this defect in him. But still the fault is personal, and may as well be fixed on them that deny the doctrine of the Sacrifice, as on them that defend it. This in either case cannot be the fault of the doctrine, but of the man.
But as if he had not yet sufficiently expressed his indigna- tion against us, he proceeds to enhance our crime, and that he may.do it in the most sanctified manner, he clothes his causeless wrath in Scripture language; he tells us, we “ offer up strange fire.” He might even as justly have accused us of offering human flesh, as the heathen did the primitive Christians. We offer, or desire to offer, the Sacrifice which Christ hath taught us, a Sacrifice “strange” to none that are Christians, except such as confine their views to modern ages and notions. The “fire” we offer is that of sincere prayers and
62 PREFACE
praise, “ strange” to none but infidels and atheists. We offer the same “fire,” that this author and his friends do. The difference is this; they choose to offer their fire in the Eucharist without any proper Sacrifice, and by this means render it a fire, strange, unknown to all Christians of the preceding ages. We desire and endeavour to preserve the pristine union betwixt the fire and the Sacrifice.
His professed design was to abolish and nullify the Sacri- fice ordained by Christ: therefore I leave it to my reader to judge, who it is that is guilty of sacrilege under the appear- ance of devotion. When he can shew that we do exclude, or in any point derogate from the Eucharist as a Sacrament, we may justly be charged with sacrilege. But he attempts not to prove this, though he hath affirmed it. His allegations against us are of a very high and heinous nature. What his evidence and arguments are, I submit to the judgment of others; declaring at the same time, that I shall always be among the foremost in extollmg and even magnifying his great abilities. There are several other particulars, in which this worthy person seems to me mistaken in the account he gives us of a Sacrament. But this shall suffice at present.
Before I conclude, I think it necessary to renew a former request to my reader, viz. That he would take my sentiments not from the representation of others, but from my own books only. And I must add, that even the citations made from those books are not always to be depended upon. I have fresh occasion given for this in a stitched book, entitled ‘The Doctrine of the Eucharist stated? The anonymous author cites me for saying”, “It must be confessed, that it does not appear, from any of these writers, that the officiating priest did offer the Sacrifice by prayer.” By these words, as there posted, he would insinuate my opinion to be, that Sacrifice is not to be offered by prayer: though in the be- ginning of that very paragraph‘, and in the following pages, I make it my business to prove, that prayer was always the medium, by which the Sacrifice was offered. Again, he ob- serves that in the words of institution, instead of “He gave thanks,” I have translated the text, “He eucharistized” the
& Printed 1720, for Bickerton. i See Unbloody Sacrifice, Part 11. h Page 4]. pp. 82, 83.
TO THE SECOND EDITION. 63
bread and wine: upon which he cries out/, “ Eucharisted them! that is, thanked them, this is wonderful.” Thus he leaves it to the reader to suppose, that I do really by eucha- ristizing mean giving of thanks, without giving the least hint that I have upon several occasions proved at large that the Greek* εὐχαριστεῖν is there used transitively, and hath the same signification with εὐλογεῖν, and that the blessing ter- minated on the bread and wine.
When this second edition was almost out of the press, I was informed that the famous Dr. Clarke of St. James’s, in the twelfth of his seventeen sermons lately published, had undertaken to confute that sense of the context in John vi. which I have asserted.
Upon a perusal of the Doctor’s discourse, I cannot but think that the substance of what the Doctor hath there ad- vanced is sufficiently answered in my PRoor annexed to this volume, and in the Letter to my very learned friend. But because there are some peculiarities in this Doctor’s way of managing the argument, therefore I will not esteem what he hath said wholly unworthy of my notice.
He spends two thirds of his sermon in proving what is granted by all, viz. that ‘meat, bread, wine, and water,” do often signify “good instruction,” and that to “eat and drink” denote the receiving such instruction. And upon this ob- servation he undertakes to explain all that is said in this con- text. Page 272, he proceeds to the pinch of the argument in these words, “ There remains only one phrase more in this chapter, wherein the same figure of speech is carried yet fur- ther. Our Lord, in the 51st, 53rd, and following verses, setting forth the same thing under the still higher figure of ‘eating His flesh, and drinking His blood,’ which in the text (ver. 35.) and in several other verses of this chapter, He had before expressed by styling Himself ‘the Bread of life. But this, when that which hath already been said, be well considered, will have no great difficulty in it.” In the fore- going page he thus expresseth his sense of Christ’s being “ the
J See pp. 62, 63, of that book. 198, 246, 282, of this second edit. ; and
* See Unbloody Sacrifice, Part I. Part II. p. 244. pp- 189, 194, 242, 278, edit. first; and
64 PREFACE
Bread of life,” viz. “That the belief, and consequent practice of the doctrine of the Gospel, is the support and preserver οὔ the soul unto eternal life’? Now the Doctor in what he says above supposes he hath explained what is meant by eating — Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood, by explainmg those
words, “I am the Bread” (or rather the meat) “of hfe.” On — ἢ
the contrary, Christ explains bread or meat by flesh. For thus He speaks, “And the meat which I will give is My — flesh.” His flesh therefore was what He had promised His — disciples in the former part of the chapter under the name of meat. And that we may be the more sure that He meant His flesh, not His doctrine, He gives this further description of it, “My flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” Τ am confident that neither the Doctor nor any judicious divine will dispute, whether this character do best agree with His flesh or with His Gospel. I conclude therefore that by bread or meat, in the foregoing part of the chapter, we are to understand Christ’s flesh, according to our Saviour’s own exposition. And I must further add, that by flesh Christ meant His sacramental flesh; which flesh He gave to God for us; as He clearly declares in the institution of the Eucha- rist. And this is His flesh, not in gross substance, but by that quickening spirit and life with which it is animated, not by a mere dry metaphor or cold figure of speech, as Dr. Clarke would have it, but by real power and energy.
Some lines here follow, which I cannot think worthy of a repetition. Then he goes on, page 273, “After our Lord’s styling Himself the Bread of life, in the same sense as Wisdom, in the Book of Ecclesiasticus (chap. xxiv. vers. 21.), saying of herself, ‘they that eat me,’ ἕο. there cannot without great perverseness be put a wrong sense upon what He adds, vers. 56, ‘He that eateth My fiesh, and drinketh My blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in him.” Now in answer to this, 1 must profess I see no justness of comparison between a fic- titious personated Wisdom introduced in Ecclesiasticus, and resembling herself to various trees or plants, and speaking magnificently of the fruits which she produced, and the honey and honey-comb inclosed in her stock, and calling on men to entertain themselves with these provisions (which she expresses by saying, ‘They that eat me,’ &c.), and on the
TO THE SECOND EDITION. 65
ther side a real human person, such as our Saviour was, leclaring that He would give His flesh to be eat, and espe- sially His blood to be drunk. It ought to have been proved hat some great master of religion, or philosophy, had used hese phrases, and meant nothing by them but receiving his loctrine, or imbibing his precepts, before a sentence of per- verseness had been passed against those that are not convinced by such defective proof. I have said what was sufficient on shis head in the first edition of this book, p. 395, which may be found p. 401 of this edition. But though no other master of religion did ever use these phrases, yet our Lord Himself hath upon another occasion used them, and used them there in a certain, and universally agreed sense, I mean, when He instituted the Eucharist. Then He commanded His disciples to “eat His Body,” and “drink His Blood.” These are the same phrases with those used here by St. John (for body and flesh are certainly the same); I cannot therefore but think it most enormously un- reasonable to take Christ Jesus as meaning one thing in one place, another in the other, by the same phrases, and especi- ally when He never used these phrases but twice in the whole course of His ministry. Dr. Clarke here unhappily forgot his own rule “ of finding the sense of Scripture in the Scrip- ture itself,’ p. 262 of this Sermon. I have spoken largely concerning this point of taking these same phrases in different senses in p. 407 of the first edition of this book, p. 412 of his edition. But the Doctor proceeds in his argument, p. 273, in these ords, “ Why should not what our Lord calls ‘eating His lesh” and ‘drinking His Blood,’ be as easily understood of ur imbibing, and digesting His doctrine, as St. Paul is by all en understood to speak in a figurative sense, when he says f all good Christians, ‘that they are members of Christ’s lesh, of His Body, and of His Bones.’” Now the answer ere is very obvious, that we are clearly determined to under- tand St. Paul as speaking of Christ’s union with, and af- ection to His Church, by another text of Scripture, viz. en. ii. 23, where this phrase is used in a sense very like his, if not the very same. When the Doctor can produce a
ext, where flesh and blood signifies doctrine, then his ques- JOHNSON. Ε
i 66 PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. ΄
tion will be to the purpose. In the mean time let me have leave to ask him, why flesh and blood must in John vi. signify doctrine, when in the history of the institution of the Sacra- ment they certainly signify the consecrated elements ?
After all, I know not whether, p. 261, and 278, the Doctor have not said some things that imply that this context is to be understood of the Eucharist. But I am not at leisure to make disquisitions concerning the sense and meaning of his expressions. And there are several particulars omitted by me, which are very extraordinary, and full of bold novelties, which yet I shall dismiss at present, especially because they are most of them, if not all, obviated in the following volume.
In truth this Sermon seems the most hasty performance that ever came from Dr. Clarke’s pen. I would have no man take a measure of the Doctor’s acumen, or of his clear- ness of thought, or diction, from this little piece, which seems scarce worthy of his great name.
A DISCOURSE
ON THE
UNBLOODY SACRIFICE, AND ALTAR.
INTRODUCTION.
CONTAINING SEVERAL DEFINITIONS OF SACRIFICE, AND THE AUTHOR’S OPINION OF THEM, AND HIS OWN DESCRIPTION OF IT.
Havine undertaken, with the Divine assistance, to prove that the Christian Eucharist is a Sacrifice properly so called, I suppose the first step I am to take is to shew, not only what I myself mean by the word Sacrifice, but that I take it in the same sense that the most learned men of all parties have understood it, and in such a sense as is most agreeable to the thing denoted by it. Now to satisfy my reader that my definition of a sacrifice is no invention of my own, made to serve a present turn, I shall first present him with those definitions, or descriptions of a sacrifice, which have been given by men of the greatest name, both among the Pro- testants and the Papists.
Melancthon’s definition of it is, a ceremony, or work, which we render “to God, in order to do honour to Him?.”
Mr. Calvin says, “ Sacrifice in its general acceptation sig- nifies whatever we offer to God; but we divide it,” as he goes on, “into two parts, the one we call λατρευτικὸν, or σεβαστι- xov, Which consists in honouring and worshipping God ; or, if you will, you may call it Εὐχαριστικὸν, as being offered by
a [**Sacrificium est opus a Deo esse Deum, quem sic colimus, et nos Mmandatum, faciendum, ut Deo tribua- __velle Ei subjectos esse.’? Melanchthon. tur honos, id est, ut ea obedientia Explicatio in Malachiam, ed. Witeberg. ostendamus nos affirmare Hune solum_ 160]. tom. ii. p. 545.]
F2
68 INTRODUCTION.
none, but such as are laden with immense blessings, and — make to God a return of themselves, their whole selves, and " all that they can do: the other we call propitiatory, or ex-— piatory, the design of which is to pacify the wrath of God, to © satisfy His justice, and by this means to wash, or wipe away — sin.” It ought not to be omitted, that he expressly declares, that he “calls that Sacrifice, which the Greeks sometimes call θυσία, sometimes προσφορὰ, according to the perpetual use of Scripture? :” so that this great man saw no difference — between a proper oblation and a sacrifice®. 7
The famous Dr. Spencer, who is as exact a writer on this — subject, as any that has yet appeared, gives us this account — of sacrifices, viz., Formally considered, they are gifts offered — to God, and solemnly consumed in honour to Him’. Mate- rially considered, they are animate things, as oxen, sheep, goats; or inanimate things, bread, wine, salt, and other things fit for food. Finally considered, they were called expiatory, when men brought gifts to the altar in order to appease God: they are called whole burnt offerings, when — intended for the rendering honour to God, and acknowledg-— ing His dominion; peace offerings, when they expressed a mind well and devoutly affected toward God; Eucharistic, or sacrifices of thanksgiving, or vows, when to signify grati- tude toward God; euctic, when for the obtaining of any
e 9)
blessing®.
>| * Quod generaliter acceptum, com- plectitur quicquvid omnino Deo offertur. —Proinde et nos in duo genera distri- buamus, ac alterum, docendi causa, vocemus λατρευτικὸν et σεβαστικὸν: quoniam veneratione cultuque Dei con- stat, quem 1111 fideles et debent et red- dunt: vel si mavis εὐχαριστικὸν : quan- doquidem a nullis Deo exhibetur nisi qui immensis Ejus beneficiis onusti, se totos cum actionibus suis omnibus Ili rependunt. Alterum propitiatorium, sive expiationis. Est autem expiationis sacri- ficium, cui propositum est iram Dei placare, Ipsius judicio satisfacere, eoque peccata abluere et abstergere.— Nos perpetuo Scripture usu sacrifi- cium appellari scimus, quod Greci nune θυσὶαν, nune προσφορὰν, nunc τελετὴν dicunt.”’? Calvin. Institutt., lib. iv. cap. xviii, sect. 13. ed. Lugdun. 1654. |
© See Institutions.
ἃ De Legib. Hebr., p. 640.
e [‘* Formaliter, quatenus munera fuerunt oblata Deo, et in Illius hono- rem solenniter consumpta.” p. 640. “Cum autem sacrificiorum materia duplex esset, nempe res animate (bo- ves, oves, et capre); res etiam inani- mate (panis, vinum, sal, aliaque men- sis adhiberi solita).” p. 656. ‘Cum enim Altari dona ferebant, ad placan- dum Deum, Expiatoria dicebantur ; cum ad honorem exhibendum, Deique dominium agnoscendum, Holocausta vel sacra honoraria: cum ad amicum et benevolum animum erga Deum sig- nificandum, Pacifica: cum ad indican- dam gratitudinem. Votiva vel Bucha- ristica: cum ad obtinendum benefi- cium, Ev«rina.’’? De Legibus Hebreo- rum, lib. iii. cap. 3. p. 664. ed. Cantab. 1685. |
INTRODUCTION. 69
Thomas Aquinas’s definition of a sacrifice is in these words, viz., “ Any thing done as an honour due to God alone, in order to procure His favourf.”
Bellarmine says, “ Sacrifice is an external oblation made to God Alone, by which some sensible and permanent thing is consecrated, and changed by a lawful Minister, and by mys- tic rites, for an acknowledgment of our weakness, and the Divine greatness.”
[Dr. Outram’s definition of a sacrifice is, “ an oblation duly consumed.” But to explain this he adds, “A sacrifice among the Jews was a holy thing offered to God, and with proper rites completed and consumed. And holy things were duly consumed, when they were killed, burnt, poured out, or made use of, for a sacred feast in a manner ordained by God'.” And in the very next section he says, “ Of those things, which were both offered and consumed in a proper manner, some had life, some had not.” Now though this learned man’s notion of a sacrifice be commonly esteemed contrary to the doctrine which I am now defend- ing, and he expressly undertakes the definition of a Jewish sacrifice only; yet I see no occasion to make any exception against his definition of a sacrifice, as here explained by him- self. The grand defect of his book seems to me to be this, that he makes the due consumption of the sacrifice to be the most necessary point of all, and yet never once offers to shew that the grand sacrifice of Christ was consumed either in whole or in part’. |
If I should produce as many more descriptions, or defini- tions of sacrifice from authors of equal reputation with these, if any such there be, who have treated on this subject, there would, I conceive, be nothing considerable contained in them but what is to be found in these, which I have already
£ [“ Sacrificium proprie dicitur ali- tur.” De Missa, lib. i. cap. 2. ed.
quid factum in honorem proprie Deo debitum, ad Eum placandum.”’ Thome Aquin. Summe Theologice, Pars 11]. Quest. xlviii. Art. 3. Conclusio. p. 101. ed. Duac. 1614.]
= [‘*Sacrificium est oblatio externa facta soli Deo, qua ad agnitionem humane infirmitatis et professionem Divine Majestatis, a legitimo minis- tro res aliqua sensibilis et permanens ritu mystico consecratur et transmuta-
1601. }
Ὁ [** Sacrificium, ad eorum (Judzo- rum) sententiam, ita definiri potest, ut sit προσφορὰ rite consumpta. Seu, ut paulo explicatius dicam, sacrificium, apud populum Hebreum, ejusmodi sacrum erat, tum rite confectum et consumptum.” De Sacrificiis, lib. 1 cap. viii. p. 82. ed. 1677. ]
i (This paragraph is added in 2nd ed. }
70 INTRODUCTION.
laid before the reader: and I have not much to object against any thing said by these very learned men: but yet 1 ought to mention the exceptions, how few or small soever which I have against them; or however to let my reader know in what sense I take some particular expressions, and in what sense I cannot admit of them. And
First, when Mr. Calvin supposes that a sacrifice must be a satisfaction to Divine justice, if it be intended for the expia- tion of sin, I must observe that the words, if strictly taken, can be applied to no sacrifice but that which was offered by Christ in person. I shall not therefore think myself obliged to prove that the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, as distinguished and abstracted from the grand Sacrifice, is a satisfaction for sin; nor can I believe that Mr. Calvin himself thought that any other sacrifice, in itself considered, could by its own intrinsic value expiate sin; and whoever asserts this doctrine does not only annul the sacrifice of the Eucharist, but all those sacrifices which were enjoined in the Levitical law; for
none of them were in themselves a satisfaction to Divine ~
justice.
Secondly, When Dr. Spencer asserts that a sacrifice is to be consumed, as well as offered, in honour to Almighty God, this is confessed to be true, if meant of the Levitical sacri- fices, of which the Doctor was treating; and it is true of all sacrifices, that they are to be consumed in the manner ap- pointed by God; but if the Doctor intended that it is essen- tial to all sacrifice to be consumed in the very act of oblation or by fire, then I must crave leave to dissent from him. The Passover was a perfect and solemn sacrifice, and owned as such by Dr. Spencer, as will hereafter appear: and yet we are assured, that it was neither in whole, nor in part, to be burnt upon an altar, nor consumed in being offered; and Dr. Spencer’s words do not imply this way of consumption to be in itself necessary: no, nor yet Dr. Outram’s, as he hath himself explained them.
Thirdly, When Bellarmine says a sacrifice must be conse- crated, it is acknowledged to be true: nay, the very act of oblation is a consecration of it: but when he speaks of its being changed, I must solemnly protest against the change by him intended, I mean, transubstantiation. A change is
es
INTRODUCTION. 71
confessed, that is, that the bread and wine from being common become holy, and the spiritual Body and Blood of Christ ; but that the substance of bread and wine is changed into the substance of Christ’s personal Body and Blood, I absolutely deny, and believe it to be as monstrous a doc- trine as ever was believed by any that call themselves Christians.
Therefore allowing all these definitions or descriptions of sacrifice, excepting as before excepted, I shall add one particular not mentioned by any of them, I mean a proper altar. I cannot indeed say, that this was ever esteemed so essential to a sacrifice, as that an oblation was esteemed null without it (excepting the case of most of the Levitical sacri- fices) ; but rather than make many words about it, I readily give it for granted, that an altar is necessary, though not to the essence, yet to the more commodious and solemn oblation of a sacrifice: and therefore I am now prepared to lay before my reader, what I think a full description of sacri- fice: viz.
Sacrifice is, 1. some material thing, either animate, or n- animate, offered to God, 2. for the acknowledging the do- minion, and other attributes of God, or for procuring Divine blessings, especially remission of sin, 3. upon a proper altar, (which yet is rather necessary for the external decorum than the internal perfection of the Sacrifice,) 4. by a proper officer, and with agreeable rites, 5. and consumed or otherwise dis- posed of in such a manner, as the Author of the Sacrifice has appointed. I shall speak to all these five particulars, by shewing,
I. In the first chapter, in what sense and degree every one of these five properties are necessary to a Sacrifice.
II. In the second, I shall shew that all these properties concur in the Eucharist, and that it is therefore a proper Sacrifice.
CHAP. Ne
Chis.
IN WHICH IS SHEWED IN WHAT SENSE AND DEGREE EVERY ONE OF THESE FIVE PROPERTIES ARE NECESSARY TO A SACRIFICE.
SECT. I.
Sacrifice is some material thing, either animate or inanimate, offered to God.
1. Tuar nothing can properly be called a sacrifice, but some material thing offered to God, is given for granted, though neither Melanchthon, nor Mr. Calvin, nor Aquinas, do expressly mention this particular; nay, the first and last of the three suppose it is sufficient that it be some ceremony, work, or action; but I shall not enlarge in a case where I think all parties are now agreed.
2. That the matter of the sacrifice must be some animate thing, some creature that has or had life, is a condition not mentioned by any of the great men above mentioned ; nay, Mr. Calvin allows, that a sacrifice and oblation are the same, according to the perpetual use of Scripture. And Dr. Spencer affirms, that a sacrifice materially considered is not only some animal, but bread and wine, or any thing fit for food; and therefore I cannot but think, that they who will allow nothing to be a sacrifice but what has life and blood, and is capable of mactation, have neither good authority nor reason for what they say.
[One of the most notable and constant sacrifices of the Jews, was a cake* made of wheat-flour and oil, and wholly burnt on the altar by the high priest, the one half in the morning, the other in the evening, every day in the year. This was called by the old Greek interpreters “a continual,
a Lev. vi. 20—22. The most judi- when he is anointed,’ say, ‘from the day cious moderns instead of, ‘in the day on which he is anointed.’
»:
A DISCOURSE ON THE UNBLOODY SACRIFICE, &e. 73
a perpetual sacrifice ;’ and by our English, “an offering per- SECT. 1.
petual, a statute for ever unto the Lord :” by both it is said
to be offered “for a sweet savour unto the Lord ;” and by
that priest of Aaron’s sons, “ who was to be anointed in his stead.” From this it appears, that the most noble, daily, pontifical sacrifice among the Jews was a cake of flour;
and this was a most lively type of our High Priest’s offering
His Sacramental Body. Josephus mentions this as still prac- : tised in his time; and he calls this daily action of the high
priest by the name of sacrificing’. Of these unbloody sacri-
fices I speak more largely in the second part of this work °. }
: They who have asserted that nothing is a sacrifice but
what is slain, have done it on supposition that θύω does That θύω properly and originally signify to kill, and that therefore oueinats θυσία, which denotes a sacrifice, must necessarily imply signify to
’ : ὕ slay, proved something that is slain. But I need not tell my learned from Aris-
reader, that no arguments are more fallacious than those ane which are built upon etymologies. At this rate of arguing, a man may deny that what I now write on is true paper, be- cause it is not made of an Egyptian shrub, or flag called _ mamrupos ; nay, it may safely be denied upon this hypothesis, that there is any such thing as a book to be sold in St. Paul’s church-yard ; because what we now call books do not consist of the rind of that tree which our ancestors called deoce, and from whence the present word book is commonly derived ; for just thus do they argue that deny any thing to be a sacrifice but what is slain, because θυσία has θύω for its theme. Of what force this way of arguing may be thought in this dis- pute 1 cannot say; but I am sure it would be thought mere chicanery in any cause but this. Yet, so far as I am capable of discerning, this is the only pretence that some men have for denying any thing that is unbloody to be a proper sacri- fice; and this pretence is so thin, that our adversaries have scarce the face to express it in words at length, but com- monly content themselves with saying, that bread and wine cannot strictly be a sacrifice. And if we enquire into the bottom of their argument, it is only this, that θύω does origi- nally signify to slay, according to their lexicons, or rather
® See Joseph., lib. iii. cap. 10. ὃ 7. Hudson’s edition. “ [Not in the Ist ed.]
CHAP. I.
74 A DISCOURSE ON THE
their own surmises; for if we look into the ancientest Greek writers, we shall certainly find that θύω did not at first sig- nify to slay, but to offer any thing to the gods, by burning it in the fire, or by any other prevailing rite. Now that this may be made very evident, I will first produce the words of Aristophanes in Plutus?:
ὅτι ovd ἂν εἷς θύσειεν ἀνθρώπων ἔτι,
οὐ βοῦν ἂν, οὐχὶ Ψαιστὸν, οὐκ ἀλλ᾽ οὔδεεν,
μὴ βουλομένου σοῦ.
Chremylus tells Plutus the blind god of riches, that “no man would sacrifice a bullock, nor any dry crumbled thing, nor any thing at all, without his consent,” that is, unless he gave them money to purchase what was to be offered. No- body, I suppose, ever suspected these ψαιστὰ were animals, or any part of animals; and yet Aristophanes supposes they may be sacrificed, as well as a bullock. We have clear proof of this signification of the word in Homer, who tells us, that Eumeeus having killed his best swine in honour to the nymphs, Mercury, and the other gods, by burning the several portions of those gods in the fire, and reserved the chine for Ulysses, who was come to him in disguise; after he had in- vited Ulysses to fall on, the poet adds,
> Lm) a a ΄ "» , * H pa, καὶ ἄργματα θῦσε θεοῖς εἰειγενέτησιν Σπείσας δ᾽ αἴθοπα οἶνον, ᾿Οδυσσῆϊ πτολιπόρθῳ
Ἔν χείρεσσιν €Onxey, ——-_————_—_®
All that was done in relation to the sacrifice, before they came to the feasting part, is expressed by fepevew, σφάττειν, and evew; but when they are going to eat, “ Eummus,” says Homer, “ sacrificed the nice bits, or first cut, to the eternal gods ;” where θύειν cannot signify to kill; for the swine was not only slain, but all, except the chine, burnt before; there- fore by ἄργματα θῦσε he can mean nothing but his offering some principal part of the viands, either by casting them into the fire, or by some other religious rite. And Eustathius, from this and other passages in Homer, concludes‘, that in this most ancient writer Qvew has the same sense with θυμιᾶν,
¢ Act I. scen. ii. [l. 137. ed. Din- f [σφάξαι μὲν, τὸ ἱερουργῆσαι ζῶον" dorf. | θῦσαι δὲ, τὸ θυμιάσαι. Vid. Eust. in loco. “Οδυσσ. Ἐ. 1. 446. ed, Rom. 1551.]
UNBLOODY SACRIFICE, &c. 75
that to sacrifice is only to burn, or make a perfume to the gods, and therefore not to slay. Athenzus says®, that θύειν is never used by Homer for offering the victim; (for in this sense he made use of ῥέζειν, and δρᾶν) but only of the | avaiora, the broken fruits and such like, the only sacrifices of the ancient Greeks". This would incline one to believe, that the ἄργματα now mentioned was none of the swine’s flesh, but either some choice fruits or cakes; and what follows favours this, viz. “ he made a libation of wine.” We have another great authority for this from Theophrastus, Aristotle’s scholar, cited by Porphyry, and from him by Eusebius’, and produced lately by Mr. Dodwell in his learned book “Concerning the use of Incense’.” The words which make most for the present purpose are as follows. Speaking of the inhabitants of the Egyptian Delta, To ye πάντων λογιώτατον γένος ἤρξωτο πρῶτον ad’ ἑστίας τοῖς οὐρανίοις θεοῖς θύειν" οὐ σμύρνης, οὐδὲ κασίας, καὶ λιβανω- τοῦ κρόκῳ μιχθέντων ἀπαρχὰς, --- ἀλλὰ χλόης, οἱονεί τινα τῆς γονίμου φύσεως χνοῦν ταῖς χερσὶν ἀράμενοι --- ἐκ δε τῆς θυμι- ἄσεως τῶν ἀπὸ γῆς θυμιατήριά τε ἐκάλουν, καὶ τὸ θύειν, καὶ θυσίας, ἅ δὴ ἡμεῖς οὐκ ὀρθῶς ἐξακούομεν, τὴν διὰ τῶν ζώων δοκοῦσαν θεραπείαν καλοῦντες θυσίαν... πολλοὶ καὶ νῦν ἔτι θύουσι συγκεκομμένα τῶν εὐωδῶν ξύλων τινα. “This most rational people began first to sacrifice to the heavenly gods from the household fires, to sacrifice not the first-fruits of myrrh, cassia, and frankincense mixed with saffron; but of grass which they cropped with their hands, being as it were a certain down of teeming nature. ... It was from this burn- ing the products of the earth, by way of incense, that they gave the name of thumiateria to the censers, and of thuein to the action of burning them, and of ¢husia to the thing sacrificed, which we now do not rightly understand, when we give the name of sacrifice to the pretended worship by ani- mals. Many do to this day sacrifice some chips of the sweet- scented trees.” In which words Theophrastus declares that the word θύσια, sacrifice, is improperly applied to offering of
& [‘Ounpds τε τὸ ῥεζειν, ἐπι τοῦ θύειν 1 De Prep. Evangel., lib. i. cap. 9. τάσσει, τὸ δὲ θύειν ἐπι τοῦ ψαιστὰ μετα- [p. 28. ed. Par. 1628. } δόρπια θυμιᾶν. καὶ οἱ παλαιοὶ τὸ θύειν J ῬΉ 0. δρᾷν ὠνόμαζον. Lib. xiv. ] * [ Mr. Dodwell’s reading is followed
᾿ς ἃ See Dr. Potter’s Antiq.Gr. [B. II. here. ] mec. ly. |
SECT. E
CHAP. 1.
Heb. xi. 4.
Gen.iy. 3~5.
76 A DISCOURSE ON THE
animals, and that originally it did not signify an oblation
slain in honour to God, and that inanimate things are most _
properly sacrifices, if we regard either the thing itself, or the words used to denote it. And Plato, who was certainly one that very well understood both the notions and the language
of the old Greeks, gives this account of it, θύειν δωρεῖσθαί ἐστε
τοῖς θεοῖς". “To sacrifice is to give to the gods.” It is clear
indeed by what Theophrastus says, that even in his time, who _ lived many hundred years after Homer, and about the time |
that the LXX made a translation of the Jewish law from the Hebrew into the Greek tongue, the word sacrifice was most commonly applied to the offermg of animals; but he com-
plains of it as an innovation, and as an instance of degene- —
racy, both as to the practice itself, and the language by which
it was expressed ; and the LXX translators were so sensible of —
this, that they use the word sacrifice for all altar oblations, inanimate as well as animate; and this is a thing so well known, that my reader will excuse me if I do not spend time
in the proof of it. He that doubts of it, I will be bold to say, —
may be convinced by one single chapter, viz. Numb. vi., where he will find the Hebrew nnz, which in strictness signifies no more than an offering of bread or meal, turned by the LXX θυσία thirteen times, if I number right, viz., ver. 13, 19, 25,
31, 37, 48, 49, 55, 61, 67, 73, 79, 87; and it is known that ;
the writers of the New Testament do for the most part use the idioms of the LXX. St. Paul follows them in this par- ticular ; for he calls the fruits of the earth offered by Cain, θυσία, ‘a sacrifice,” as well as the cattle offered by Abel, as the LXX had done before. And it is very evident that, in this particular, the idiom of the LXX was agreeable to the no- tions of the ancient Greeks, and to the critique of Theo- phrastus, Athenzeus, and Eustathius, who seem rather to appropriate the word sacrifice to manimate, than animate sacrifice, and to the definition of Plato, who says, “to sacri- fice is to give to the gods.” It is true, as Theophrastus intimates, that the Greeks of his age, and I may add of all ages after him, did commonly take the word θυσία to be derived from the verb θύω, as signifying “to slay ; but it is evident too, that this was but a vulgar prejudice, and that ' See Dr. Spencer, de Legib. Hebr., p. 665.
ee EN
cum
UNBLOODY SACRIFICE, ἕο. a6
θύω was never thought to bear any such signification, until sEcT. bloody sacrifices came in vogue, and by usually applying E this verb to the offering these bloody sacrifices, the men of after ages began to think that it denoted mactation. It were easy to give instances of words in all known languages, that have thus in several ages varied their significations upon occasions; but the thing is so well known, that I may well spare my pains. Our adversaries seem to value their own notions and opinions more than those of the ancients, chiefly on this account, that they live in an age, in which the original languages are better understood, than they were by the primitive fathers; but if these languages are now better understood, it is evident, that they who value themselves on this account, are none of those who know Greek better than the Fathers did. Even the Latin Fathers knew well enough that an inanimate thing may be a sacrifice: the vulgar Italic Bible would teach them this, where nn3y, and θυσία, is often rendered by sacrificium ; and it will appear by several cita- tions hereafter to be produced, that they did actually so under- stand it. And though some of the Greek Fathers seem to think that θύω did originally signify to slay, (for what man is so wise, as not to be carried down the stream of vulgar mistakes, as to some particulars?) yet they never argued as our adversaries do, that therefore nothing can be a proper sacrifice, but what can be slain: they did not build their faith upon so airy a foundation as an etymology. As to the manner of consuming the sacrifice, viz., by burning, which some of the ancient Greeks seem to think is implied in the verb θύω, 1 shall have another occasion to speak of it ere long. In the mean time let our adversaries consider, that they cannot deny an inanimate thing to be capable of being made a sacrifice, but that they must suppose themselves better acquainted with the Greek tongue than Homer, Aris- tophanes, or Plato; and that they are better critics than Athenzus, or Theophrastus, or Eustathius; not to mention the authority of the LXX, the Apostle, and the most primi- tive Church, which are certainly sacred with all good Chris- We dispute
Ε canes 5 not for tian divines. And lest our adversaries or others should words, ours think that we contend for words, let them assure themselves, })04y «x-
that if it be once granted, that an inanimate oblation may crifice.
CHAP. I.
78 A DISCOURSE ON THE
serve all the ends of a real sacrifice, this is all that we demand. | For though we cannot see any reason to drop the use of a | word that has been applied to the Eucharist for above | fifteen hundred years together, without any observable con- — tradiction, yet we at the same time declare with all anti- — quity, that ours is an unbloody Sacrifice. And because — the Church of Rome has misapplied this title to their mis-— satic Sacrifice, we therefore further declare, that we believe - not the very substantial or personal Blood of Christ to be — there offered, as the Papists do, and therefore cannot, in any tolerable sense, call that an unbloody Sacrifice. But lest my a reader should surmise that I labour only to prove an oblation — of mere material bread and wine, and that such an oblation - seems not worthy of our zeal and concern, I shall only re- — mind him, that a sacrifice, or oblation of bread and wine, — though in itself considered it be of no great worth, yet may be of inestimable value on other considerations. And I can- | not but admire to see one of our adversaries cite Greek upon us to prove that an ox or sheep is in itself better than a loaf of bread, as if he knew no other standard of the value of a sacrifice than the market price of it, or the external qualities inherent in it. They who estimate sacrifices by this rule, are just such appraisers of the representative sacrifice as Judas and the high priests were of the original, when they set It at thirty pieces of silver.
SECT. II.
That Sacrifice, properly so called, is offered for the acknow- ledging the dominion and other attributes of God, and for procuring Divine blessings, especially remission of sin.
Tus is a truth implied, if not expressed, in all the descrip- tions of a sacrifice above produced. It were very easy to. make a great show of reading on this occasion; but since there is an unanimous consent on all sides as to this head, I shall no longer dwell upon it.
UNBLOODY SACRIFICE, Xe. 79
SECT. ) SECT: fii: _ as
That a proper Sacrifice is to be offered on a proper Altar (though the altar be rather necessary to the external deco- rum than the internal perfection of the sacrifice).
I svupposE any convenient utensil, table, or eminence, whether natural or artificial, of whatsoever materials it be framed, on which a material sacrifice is offered, may be ealled an altar. If it be solely, or chiefly set apart, or dedi- eated to this use, it is a proper altar; and if it be erected for offering sacrifice by fire, it must be furnished with a fire- hearth, or be capable of being used as such; such was the altar of burnt-offering at Jerusalem : if it be only used once, or rarely, it is an occasional or vicarious altar. In this sense the rock on which Manoah made an oblation is called an Judges xiii. altar; and yet if the fabric be built on purpose for the mak- = ing one single oblation, I see no reason why in this case it may not be deemed a proper altar; as that, for instance, which Abraham built, on which he intended to offer his son Gen. xxii.9. Isaac, which was an oblation never to be repeated. There is this difference between a fixed, proper, appropriated altar, and an occasional or vicarious one; that an altar of the first sort sanctifies the gifts laid on it, as our Saviour says of the altar of burnt-offering at Jerusalem; and the same may be Matt. xxiii. said, I apprehend, of all altars that are raised by due autho- "Ὁ rity, and designed and publicly known to be for no other use but for receptacles of such things as are to be devoted to the service of God; for in this case, the solemn placing of any thing on it is an effectual declaration that the thing so placed on it is God’s peculiar right and property; but this I think cannot be said of any other occasional tumultuary elevation made for the offering sacrifice once and away. I should in this case rather say, that the gift sanctifies the altar, than the altar the gift; for I cannot conceive how such an altar ean have any sort of sanctity but what it receives from the oblation made upon it, except it have been by some previous act and deed consecrated to the worship of God. But this is only my conjecture, and the present dispute does no way depend upon it.
Cov PB: I.
Ex. xii. 22.
See 2 Chr. ROCK he
80 A DISCOURSE ON THE
What is more pertinent, and more clear, is, that a proper fixed altar is not absolutely necessary to the internal perfec- tion of a sacrifice ; the reasons of which opinion are, that it does not appear, that Abel or Cain made use of any, in offer- ing the first sacrifices that are recorded in Holy Writ; and it seems utterly improbable, that every family of the Israelites should, in their several houses, have had a proper fixed altar for the first Paschal sacrifice offered in the land of Egypt; and if they had had such altars, it is not credible that they should have been commanded to sprinkle the blood of the lamb “on the lintel, and the two side-posts of their doors,” but as was done after they had a tabernacle, and other conve- niences of worship, on the altar itself, and yet that the pass- over was a sacrifice properly so called, I shall presently have occasion to shew. By the words of Theophrastus, just now cited, it appears that the ancient Grecians sacrificed m their domestic fires, and therefore, if they had altars, did not think
them essential to a sacrifice™. I have not advanced this essential to a sacrifice, as if I
m [Here follows in the first edition, “The old Persians had neither tem- ples, nor altars, and yet offered animal sacrifice. [ Herod. Clio, ce, 132.] See Propitiatory Oblation, p. 121, 122. The cross, on which the mactation of the grand sacrifice was performed, may be justly said to be an occasional altar, not indeed in the intention of those who erected it, but by the Divine de- cree and purpose. Nay, though no other sacrifice was ever designed to be made on it, yet it has this peculiar to itself, that by the all-wise will and pleasure of God, ‘The Lamb that was to be slain was decreed to bear our sins in His own body on the tree;’ (1 Pet. 11. 24.): and so that tree may in some sense be said to be a proper altar, not withstanding its shape and figure ; and its being to be used but once, does no more prove this to be an improper altar, than it proves that which was built for the offering Isaac to be such. And I apprehend, that it is upon these considerations that the cross is called an altar by Origen, and by St. Am- brose.” “Ubi vero tempus advyenit erucis suz, et accessurus erat ad altare ubi immolaret hostiam carnis sue, ac-
opinion, that an altar is not had any apprehension that the
cipiens, inquit, calicem, benedixit, et dedit discipulis suis: Accipite, et bibite ex hoc. Vos, inquit, bibite, qui modo accessuri non estis ad altare. Ipse autem tanquam accessurus ad altare, dicit de se: Amen dico vobis, quia non bibam de generatione vitis hujus, usquequo bibam illud vobiseum novum in regno Patris Mei.” Origenis in Leviticum, Homilia vii. tom. ii. p. 220. ed. Paris. 1733. ‘An non tibi vi- detur effudisse sanguinem suum, de cujus latere supra ipsum passionis al- tare aqua cucurrit et sanguis?’’ S. Am- brosii Epistolarum Classis ii. Ep. Ixy. tom, ii. p. 1054. ed. Paris. 1686. ‘ Mi- rabile illud altare, in quo Unius Agni sacrificium tulit peceata mundi.” S. Amb. in Ps. exviii. Expositio, tom. i. p- 1002. Cf. Vitringa, Observationes Sacre, 1. ii. c. 13. p. 228. ed. Frane- quer. 1689. “dra in quantum porta- Vit sacrificium, idque in altum tulit, sig- num fuit crucis, in quam Christus fol- leretur, in quam elevaretur, et in qua Se Ipsum ut sacrificium Patri suo sisteret, quzeque Christum portaret.”’ See Gothof. Voigti Thysiasteriologia, sive De Altaribus Veterum Christianorum, cap. xix. pp. 31, 2.ed. Hamburg. 1709. ]
UNBLOODY SACRIFICE, &c. 81
Eucharist is destitute of a proper Altar, for I shall hereafter 5 ΟΎ. prove a proper Altar in the Christian Church. And though Βα I am not convinced that a proper Altar is absolutely neces-
sary for a proper Sacrifice, yet I am fully persuaded that whatever is offered by a Priest on a proper Altar, may strictly ;
be called a Sacrifice.
SECT. IV.
That a proper Sacrifice is to be offered by proper officers, and with agreeable rites.
Tus indeed is mentioned by Bellarmine only, in the de- Priests ne- scriptions of Sacrifice above produced, but it seems to have ea been the sense of all mankind; and, therefore, when great “@Hice- numbers of clans and families, whose several heads had before been their kings and priests, were embodied together by con- quest or voluntary submission, or were by other means ex- eeedingly enlarged and multiplied, and occupied many exten- sive countries, and had many cities and districts, governed by subordinate magistrates in civil matters, they all unani- mously provided distinct officers for the inspection and cele- bration of divine offices. Such were the several fraternities of priests instituted in the infancy of the Roman empire by Numa, as Plutarch informs us in the history of his life". Such were the several ranks of priests among the Grecians, for which I refer my reader to Dr. Potter’s Antiquities®, and others who have written on this subject. Such were the Magi among the Persians, as Herodotus informs us?. Egypt, as it was one of those countries that were first of all Well stocked with people, who were invited thither by the fertility of the soil, so we are assured that there was in this country a settled priesthood, with an unalienable maintenance in lands, before Jacob’s descent into Egypt, and before the date of any history now in being, excepting that of Moses. And Hero- dotus, the most ancient of the Greek historians, takes notice of these priests in his Euterpe, and says, they received their office by succession or inheritance’. And when God by His Gen. xvii. especial providence had multiplied Abraham’s posterity into i
" [p. 68. ed. Francofurt. 1599. ] P [Clio, c. 132.]
° [B. ii. c. 3.] : 4 fe. 37.]
JOHNSON. G
CH ACR: if
Ritesneces- sary are only those actions by which the oblation is made.
82 A DISCOURSE ON THE
a nation, and resolved to form them, not only into a body” politic, but a religious society, He Himself separated one of | the twelve tribes of which their nation consisted, for the more immediate attendance on His Divine Majesty in reli- gious worship. And it was declared to be present death for: any man to intrude into the sacred office, or with unsanctified hands to touch any thing which God had committed to their care and direction. And though Sacrifice was not the only employment of these religious officers, yet this was always thought the most honorary and valuable function of the priesthood ; and therefore only the elder house of that tribe, — whom God was pleased to make choice of for the sacred ministry, were intrusted with the privilege of offering sacrifice. And even in the heathen nations, none were permitted to perform this office in public, but only such as had been solemnly dedicated to this function.
And as all momentous actions are to be performed with a due decorum, and with just solemnity, so it is especially ne- cessary that this most weighty negotiation betwixt God and man be executed with agreeable rites, and with circumstances" befitting such holy institutions. But if we enquire into those: rites which were peculiar to Sacrifice, we shall find them to be no other but the very actions of offermg them. I will not pretend to say that there never were any ceremonies esteemed necessary by some particular people, for some par- ticular sacrifices, but what I affirm is, that no rite is essen= tial to Sacrifice in general, but only the very act or acts of oblation. For if it were otherwise, the Levitical sacrifices were in reality null; for no rites were necessary in offering them but sprinkling the blood, and burning the whole, or part of the sacrifice. And I suppose it needs no proof, that these, with the prayers, were the very rites by which the sacerdotal
whole sacrifice was consecrated to God, and the atoneme at made; and by burning the part or the whole on the Altar God had what He required actually yielded to Him’. This
τ (“So that these ritual actions were that performed the office. Nor can J indeed no other but what were used as upon the best enquiry I am able 6 vocal signs, with which the sacrifice make, find any ceremony generall} was presented toGod. The priest used thought necessary for offering a sacri- no words; but the actions were signifi- fice, but only the actions, whereby the cant, and spake the thoughts of him _ sacrifice was presented.’’ First Ed.]_
UNBLOODY SACRIFICE, &c. 83
argument is more largely and clearly pursued, part 11. ch. 1. SECT. : IV. sect. Vl. eee
SECT. V.
A sacrifice must be consumed in such a manner as the author of it, or God to whom it is offered, hath appointed.
Dr. Spencer [and Dr. Outram] affirm this in express words, and Bellarmine means the same; for the change, I suppose, in his sense, is the consumption of the sacrifice. And though we can allow of no such change, yet we must confess, that God has so peculiar a right in things so solemnly offered and appropriated to Him, that it would be profane and sacrilegious to dispose of them otherwise, than He Him- self has directed. If God indeed had expressly declared, that the material sacrifice was to be bestowed or destroyed, according to the discretion of those who offered it; then, I suppose, no human authority could restrain this liberty granted by God; but it is not rational to suppose, that God should make no distinction between sacred and profane, be- tween what had been offered to Him, and what had not; and yet it appears from Herodotus, that the old Persians were persuaded, that they might make what use of their sacrifices they themselves pleased’. Our adversaries would have it, Consump- that it is essential to sacrifice to be consumed by fire; but a eg upon what grounds they assert this, they inform us not. ae On the other side we are assured, that none of the Levitical sacrifices, but burnt-offerings, and offerings for the sins of the priest and congregation, were wholly consumed in this manner. The greatest, much the greatest part of the usual sin and trespass-offering was consumed by manducation. Nothing but the fat, and the caul, and the kidneys, were to be burnt on Lev. iv. the Altar, and the rump, if it were a trespass-offering ; and the uaa 3. same may be said of the peace-offerings. So that the only way {°v ™® of consuming the Levitical sacrifices was not by fire; nay, the greatest part of them were consumed in another way ; the main of the sacrifices were to be eaten either by priest, or
S [ἀποφέρεται 6 θύσας τὰ κρέα, καὶ χρᾶται ὅ τι μιν λόγος aipéet.—Clio, c. 132. ]
a2
CHEAP: it
Passover a proper Sa- crifice, yet not con- sumed by fire.
Ex. xii. 9.
84 A DISCOURSE ON THE
people, or both. [Dr. Outram, as cited in the Introduction, allows that what was made use of for a sacred feast was con- sumed as a sacrifice.]t And I presume no one can doubt, but that the carcase was as rightly consumed by manducation, as the fat, caul, kidneys, and rump were by fire. And by conse- quence, if the whole had been directed to be eaten by the law, then the whole had been by this means rightly consumed ; for there is no reason but the will of the legislator, why the whole, as well as the greatest part of these sacrifices, might not be consumed by manducation. And to make this more evident, it is to be considered that the Passover was entirely to be consumed by being eaten, even “ the head, and the legs, and the purtenance thereof,” as well as the body of the lamb. So that this is an unexceptionable instance of a sacrifice, wholly consumed, without fire, and by manducation. That the Passover was a Sacrifice, properly so called, we are assured in the narrative of its institution, Exod. xu. 27. “It is the Sacrifice of the Lord’s Passover,” or rather, ‘it is the Sacri- fice of Passover to the Lord,” as the LXX do justly, and even literally render the words". Bochart* has proved by arguments drawn from Scripture and the writings of the Rabbies, that the Paschal lamb only is meant in that text, Exod. xxiii. 18, that this was that Sacrifice, of which God there says, “Thou shalt not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leaven, neither shall the fat of My sacrifice remain until the morning.” And indeed it is so explained Exod. xxxiv. 25. “Thou shalt not offer the blood of My sacrifice with leaven, neither shall the sacrifice of the feast of Passover be left unto the morning.” “God,” says Dr. Spencer’ on these words, “calls it, by way of excellence, My Sacrifice ;” and he tells us, God made this law that none of the Paschal lamb should be left until the morning, that men might have no excuse if they should put a slight upon this singular Sacrifice?. It is true, this was none of the Levitical sacrifices, strictly so
[ Not in first edition. ]
ἃ Θυσία τὸ πάσχα τοῦτο Κυρίῳ, but the author is right according to the Hebrew nim sin ΠΙΘΕ ΤΙΣ]
* De Animalib. Sacris, Pars I. lib. il. col. 573.
Y De Leg. Hebr., p. 150.
2 [Deus hane ‘legem ferens, men- tionem Paschatis facit honorificam.
Nam Pascha, non agnum, sed "Π2Ὶ
sacrificium meum ;—Quid autem Deus, hoe in loco, tam honorifice de Paschate loqueretur, nisi ut tacite mdicaret, Se legem hance ideo tulisse, ut contemptus alicujus ansa et species omnis a sa- crificis tam insigni tolleretur?’’—De Legg. Hebr., p. 150.] =
UNBLOODY SACRIFICE, &e. 85
called ; for it was instituted a considerable time before there SEC τὴς was any the least hint given to Moses concerning the taber- Ξ nacle, or the service there to be performed. But Christians cannot esteem it the less on this account, no more than the sacrifices of Abel, Noah, Abraham, and the other patriarchs, for neither were they Levitical. It is sufficient that it had all the essentials of a Sacrifice, and God was pleased peculiarly to call it His own. Nay, Christians in reality ought to have a special regard to the Passover, as being in a more peculiar manner the prefiguration of the grand Sacrifice.
I therefore readily acknowledge, nay, I earnestly insist on it, that all Sacrifice must be consumed according to the direc- tions of its Divine Author: it would be a great profanation, to dispose of what belongs to God, contrary to His own will and pleasure made known to us. There was not more pre- cise care taken of any one thing im the old law, than how every part of every sacrifice and oblation should be con- sumed ; what portion should be burnt; what might be eaten by the priests, or their families and dependants ; and what by the people; in what place, within what time, and with what circumstances it should be eaten; with several penalties laid upon all that transgressed these directions. And though Lev. vi. 14 these provisions were part of the ceremonial law, done away = ee by Christ, yet the reason upon which they are grounded is of *!*:°—*. eternal force, viz. that nothing offered to God shall be other- wise consumed or disposed of, than God has Himself pre- scribed. But that nothing but fire has a right to consume sacrifice, is a mere precarious notion, and contrary even to the Levitical law itself. For by that law the greatest part of the sacrifices were consumed by manducation ; which therefore is at least as proper a method of consuming the whole, as any other, nay the most proper, when God is pleased to direct men to this method of consumption. Thus His own sacrifice the Passover was consumed, and this He intended as a type of a more perfect Sacrifice of His own foundation.
Thus have I described the nature of a proper Sacrifice, according to the best light I could receive from other men, or my own reflection. I proceed to shew that the Eucharist has all these properties now rehearsed, and is therefore a Sacrifice properly so called.
CHAP. Il.
CHAE. Ἢ
IN WHICH IS PROVED, THAT THE EUCHARIST HAS ALL THE FIVE PROPERTIES OF A SACRIFICE BEFORE MENTIONED.
SECT. I.
That material Bread and Wine, as the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ, were by a solemn act of oblation in the Eucharist, offered to Almighty God in the primitive Church, and that they were so offered by Christ Himself in the institution.
In order to prove the Eucharist a proper Sacrifice, I am (according to the method proposed in the former chapter), first to shew, that material things were actually offered to God in the Eucharist by the primitive Church, and by Christ Jesus Himself. But before I undertake this, I shall first, by way of prevention, dispute one pass with our adversaries ; and it is the main evasion they have, when they feel them- selves closely pressed with our arguments; I mean, that the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is frequently called by the ancients an unbloody, rational, spiritual Sacrifice: and when they find any of these epithets given to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, they from thence conclude that it was by the ancients meant to be a mere meutal figurative Sacrifice. Now once for all to silence this pretence, and that I may not have occasion to make digressions on this account, when I am in pursuit of my main argument, I shall beforehand shew that the ancients were so far from thinking it was inconsistent with a true material sacrifice, to be unbloody, rational, or spiritual, that they do often in the same sentence express, or imply, the Sacrifice of the Eucharist to be material, and yet un- bloody, rational, or spiritual. What they meant when they called a material sacrifice rational, or spiritual, I shall here- after have occasion to shew : it will be sufficient at present to
THE EUCHARIST A MATERIAL SACRIFICE. 87
prove, that they did so understand these words, as that it srecT. was no contrariety in their language, to give these epithets __' to the material Sacrifices of Christians. 1. As to the word ‘unbloody,’ it generally denotes some material thing, according to the best of my judgment and information. However, that it does so, when applied to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, take these following instances. St. Cyril of Alexandria says?, “ the table which had the shew- bread denotes the unbloody Sacrifice of the bread or loaves.” And elsewhere”, speaking of the prophecy, he by the mincha Mal.i-10,11. understands, “‘the pure unbloody Sacrifice offered in every place ;” and presently after adds, “the heavenly life-giving Sacrifice being here ordained, by which death is annulled, and this corruptible, earthly flesh puts on incorruption,” by this, meaning the material Eucharist. St. Chrysostom speaks of the same prophecy, when he says‘, “See how brightly and illustriously he has explained the mystical table, and the unbloody Sacrifice ; he calls the holy prayer, which is offered with the Sacrifice, pure incense; therefore the mystical table is the pure Sacrifice, the principal heavenly victim, to be pre- ferred before the world.’ By the table he clearly means what is placed on the table; and this, as distinguished from the prayer offered with it, he calls the ‘ unbloody’ Sacrifice. St.Gregory Nazianzen says‘, “Julian expiated his hands from the” pretended defilements of the “unbloody Sacrifice, by which we communicate with Christ and His sufferings.” And again‘, he describes the Arians as “leaping or treading on the Altars, and defiling the unbloody Sacrifices with the blood of men, and heathen sacrifices.” For the Apostate could not suppose, that the prayers and praises of Christians defiled his hands. Nor could St. Gregory imagine, that the mental devotions of Christians could be polluted by the Arians. St. Athanasius tells us‘, “ Melchisedec was the first type of offering the unbloody Sacrifice, the holy oblation.” And I suppose the reader need not be told, that the Sacrifice offered by Melchisedec, in the judgment of the ancients, was Bread and Wine; which therefore he here calls “ the unbloody
«
ac. p. 43. Ap 4b: p. 21, Av. © e. p. 43.1. 3. 9. Ap 9 d. p. 21. Ap. © f. p. 38. Ap. 6 ΡΥ ΑΝ
CH I
AGE: 1G
88 THE EUCHARIST
Sacrifice.” There is a citation in the Rev. Dr. Wise’s book, as from St. Athanasius in Questiones ad Antiochum, where ‘ un- bloody’ is taken in the same sense; I will give it the reader in Dr. Wise’s translation : “ As all who think themselves bound to offer sacrifice to God by the blood of animals and irrational things, do pervert the unbloody Sacrifice of Christ, and make It abominable; so all who circumcise the flesh, do set at nought and overturn the spiritual circumcision of Christians, to wit, Holy Baptism.” I suppose this writer, by ‘Baptism,’ or ‘ spiritual circumcision,’ must mean water-Baptism, unless it can be shewed, that there was any other Baptism that could be perverted. And indeed, Holy Baptism, especially when opposed to ‘ the circumcision of the flesh,’ cannot in reason be taken in any other sense: so that it is very evident he here speaks of the two Sacraments. And as ‘spiritual circumcision’ denotes water-Baptism, so ‘unbloody Sacrifice’ denotes the Sacramental Bread and Wine. But I only crave so much aid from this citation, as can be expected from a writer of the seventh century, under the name of St. Athanasius; and can only say, that his authority is as good for the right meaning of the word ‘unbloody,’ as it would be against it; see Dr. W.’s books. Eusebius has a passage very apposite to this pur- pose, “ Who but Our Saviour did ever by tradition instruct His votaries to celebrate unbloody and rational Sacrifices, by prayers, and an ineffable theology? therefore He erected Altars throughout the habitable world,” &c. He calls the Sacrifices unbloody and rational; but asks who ever did in- struct his votaries to offer such, except Our Saviour. Now if by unbloody and rational he had meant prayer, the question might have been retorted upon him; for who that ever gave divme laws, did not instruct men to offer prayers? That which is peculiar in Our Saviour’s Sacrifices, is, that they are offered only by ‘ prayer,’ not by fire and smoke, as those of the Jews and Gentiles; and by an ‘ineffable theology,’ by which he means the mystical consecration, and the rites and devo- tions with which it was attended. And to ‘erect altars’ for invi- sible Sacrifices, isa work which no one but Dr. Hancock, I pre- sume, will assign to Christ Jesus‘. In the Clementine Liturgy,
& p. 305. i [‘ Invisible’ is Johnson’s own infe- hb, p. 15. Ap. rence of Dr. Hancock’s meaning, when
A MATERIAL SACRIFICE. 89
the officiating Bishop prays for the ordained Bishop thus‘,
SECT. I
“That he may atone Thee, O God, by offering to Thee the ——~——
pure and unbloody Sacrifice, which Thou hast ordained by Christ, the mysteries of the New Testament.” For I take it for granted, that the Eucharistical Body and Blood are the mysteries of the New Testament here mentioned; and that you may be sure that a material Sacrifice is here intended, after the prayer is concluded, the officiating Bishop is directed “to offer the Sacrifice in the hands of the ordained : in what sense soever you take these last words, they must import a material Sacrifice; for no other Sacrifice can be put into the hands of another. As in these places it is evident, beyond all doubt, that ‘unbloody’ and ‘material’ are epithets that may be applied to the same Sacrifice ; so I am not sensible, that any one passage is to be produced from the Fathers or Councils, in which prayers, praise, or the like mental Sacrifices, are called unbloody; and Plutarch’ applies the word to the libations of meal and wine, used by the Pythagoreans and ancient Romans (in vitd Nume, cited by me in the Propitiatory Oblation, p.125, and by Dr. W. p. 2765.) So that I take it for granted, that by the unbloody Sacrifice is always meant the Sacrifice of the sacramental Bread and Wine, in all ancient monuments of Christianity ; and consequently, that when ‘ra- tional’ or ‘spiritual’ go along with ‘unbloody,’ the same mate- rials are thereby meant ; and indeed in some particular places there are other concomitant words, which shew that Bread and Wine are meant, as in the Apostolical Constitutions®, “Tnstead of bloody Sacrifices, Christ enjomed the rational unbloody Sacrifice of His Body and Blood;” for where is
he contrasts ‘intellectual’ with ‘mate- not unbloody, material Sacrifices, such as
rial,’ and thereupon founds an argu- ment against the Eucharistic Sacrifice’s being understood of the Bread and Wine, understanding ‘intellectual’ and ‘ra- tional’ in the sense of mental, as oppos- ed to ‘material.’ The passage runs thus, ‘*‘ Who,’ (saith Eusebius, Ec. Hist. Col. Ed. Vol. i. p. 650,) ‘except our Saviour hath taught us to perform unbloody and rational ‘ Sacrifices :’ and in the same place, ‘ The services of in- tellectual and rational Sacrifices are offered to God, the King of all nations.’ Here we may see what are the un- bloody Sacrifices the Fathers speak of,
Bread and Wine, but intellectual, ra- tional Sacrifices.’ See Patres Vindi- cati, p. 17. Pamph. 283. 1709. Bodl.]
Kea. p. 52. Ap. 1 6.
" Kowidi δὲ καὶ τὰ τῶν θυσιῶν ἔ ἔχεται τῆς Πυθαγορικῆς ἁγιστείας" ἀναίμακτοι γὰρ ἦσαν, αἵ τε πολλαὶ δι᾽ ἀλφίτου καὶ σπονδῆς, καὶ τῶν εὐτελεστάτων πεποιη- μέναι. [p. 65. |
m {‘* And indeed he who should talk of unbloody prayer and praise, would by all judicious readers be looked upon as one that affected a language by him- self.” First Ed. ]
ne. p. 47. Ap.
Rational or spiritual,
joined with
unbloody,
denotes a
Sacrifice of Bread and Wine.
CHAP. Il.
90 THE EUCHARIST
Christ’s Blood sacrificed in an unbloody way, but in the Eucharistical chalice? So Cyril of Jerusalem?®, “ When the spiritual victim, the unbloody service is consecrated, we beseech God over that Sacrifice of propitiation?,” &c. for I suppose no Sacrifice can be said to be consecrated, and to have prayers said ‘over it’ in the Christian Church and Eucha- rist, of which Cyril was speaking, but the Bread and Wine; and therefore, when Athenagoras says3, Τί de μοι ὁλοκαυτώ- σεων, ὧν μὴ δεῖται ὁ Θεὸς ; καί τοι προσφέρειν δέον ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν, καὶ τὴν λογικὴν προσάγειν λατρείαν: “ What need I care for whole burnt-offerimgs of which God has no need? it is rather proper to offer to Him the unbloody Sacrifice, the rational service ;” I can see no occasion to doubt, but that he means the oblation of material Bread and Wine. I suppose this to be the first time that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is called ‘unbloody’ in any remaining monument of Christianity, unless it be allowed that the Clementine Liturgy was used in this age, which I am very much inclined to believe’.
[It is not necessary for me to assert that ‘ unbloody’ does always imply something that is material. It is sufficient, that it so signifies when applied to the Eucharist. Constantine in his letter to Sapores king of Persia says’, “ Christians are content with unbloody prayers only in supplicating God :” and
ΘΕΈ LUA eee be δ΄
P Mr. Lewis would thus obscure this illustrious passage with a translation of his own, I suppose, viz. “ after this spi- ritual Sacrifice, and the unbloody wor- ship on this Sacrifice of propitiation is completed, we beseech God,” &c. The principal enquiry is, what Cyril means by the ‘ Sacrifice of propitiation.” I suppose Mr. L. would by this under- stand the grand personal Sacrifice. But ἐκείνης clearly points at some Sacrifice just before mentioned, and there is no Sacrifice before mentioned but the Eu- charist, or ‘‘ spiritual Sacrifice, the un- bloody service.’”’ (See the next para- graph but one.) The Eucharist there- fore is “that Sacrifice of propitiation.” Behold and admire the laboured ob- scurity of these words: “ this spiritual Sacrifice and unbloody worship upon this Sacrifice of propitiation,” &c. To produce this darkness he hath deleted a comma after λατρείαν, added one after ἐκείνης, and inserted a conjunctive particle between θυσίαν and λατρείαν.
After all, the translation is contrary to his own hypothesis. For it supposes the Sacrifice aud worship to be com- pleted before the intercessions, and consequently before the distribution of the sacred symbols. [This note was
added in second Ed. ]
+ [Legatio pro Christianis, 12. p.49. ed. Oxon. 1706. ]
τ (* And though I cannot from any other circumstance certainly conclude, that he meant the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine, yet I shall believe that this was Athenagoras’s meaning, from his using the epithet ‘unbloody,’ till it be proved by our adversaries that it is ever applied to mere mental sacrifices; and consequently, that by the ‘rational service’ we are to understand the same Bread and Wine.” First Ed. ]
s Sozomen., lib. ii. cap. 15. Ed. Va- lesii. Paris. 1668. Μόναις εὐχαῖς ἄναι- μάκτοις πρὸς ἱκεσίαν Θεοῦ ἀρκοῦνται --- ἀποχρῆσαι Αὐτῶ εἰς νίκην τὸ τοῦ σταυ- pod σύμβολον καὶ εὐχήν καθαρὰν αἷμά- των καὶ ῥύπου.
A MATERIAL SACRIFICE. 91
a little after, that “the sign of the cross, and prayer free from blood and filth, were sufficient to gain him victory.” If he by ‘unbloody prayers’ meant prayer without any Sacrifice at all that was material, it is not much to be wondered at in an emperor that was himself but a catechumen, especially when writing to a professed heathen prince. But it is evident he means ‘prayers undefiled with blood and filth, the filth of animal sacrifices: as ‘bloody prayers’ denote devotions offered - with the sacrifice of living creatures; so ‘unbloody prayers’
may denote devotions offered with sacrifices of creatures without life, and such is the Eucharist. The word turned ‘prayer’ may, and very often does, signify a vow, and then it
will imply a material Sacrifice ; as I shall prove, ch. 11. sect.
= No. 5.|*
I know the word ‘service’ does, in common discourse, signify Service actions rather than things; but as Grotius, on Romans ch. ix. ae aa ver. 4, truly observes", ‘ service’ denotes all Sacrifices, and in Sea the institution of the Passover signifies the sacrificed lamb, as it evidently doth Exod. xii. 26, 27, “ When your children shall say what is this service to you?” (this is the literal ren- dition) “It is the Sacrifice of Passover to the Lord ;” where ‘service’ in the question is explained by ‘ Sacrifice’ in the answer ; and in our lawbooks*, if I mistake not, ‘ service’ does not only signify some respect, labour, or work, but some real thing, paid, or yielded by the tenant, to the lord of the manor.
2. As for the word ‘rational, when applied to the Eucha- Rational ristic Sacrifice, that it does not only denote some act of our ee reason, or understanding, sufficiently appears by this, that What's | the Sacramentary of GregoryY, and other Latin Liturgies, in- struct the Priest to pray to God, that He would “render it a
SECT. 1.
* [Not in first Ed.] u [kal ἡ λατρεία, et obsequium |
function ; yet more especially in our common law, it is used for that ser-
ΓΔ ΚΝ [ceremonia}]; quo nomine ve- niunt Sacrificia omnia, sed precipue - Agnus Paschalis, ut videre est Exodi xii. 25. ubi in Greco, φυλάξασθε τὴν λατρείαν ταύτην [observate ceremoniam hanece.”’] Grotii Annotatt. in Ep. ad Romanos, tom. ii. vol. ii. p. 726. Ed. Amstelodam. 1679. ]
* (“Service (servitium) though it have a general signification of duty to- ward them unto whom we owe the per- formance of any corporal labour, or
vice, which the tenant by reason of his fee oweth unto his lord. And so doth it signify among the Feudists also. For Hotoman thus defineth it, ‘Ser- vitium est munus obsequii clientelaris.’ Verbo Servitium. De verbis feudal. It is sometime called ‘ servage,’ as anno 1 R. 11. cap. 6.” Cowell’s Law In- terpreter, sub voce ‘Service.’ Ed. Camb. 1607. } Y c, p. 58. Ap.
92 THE EUCHARIST
CHAP. rational acceptable Sacrifice, and make it the Body and Blood
U. of Christ 3’ which can be understood of nothing, but the ma-
terial Bread and Wine; for of nothing else can it be said, or
expected, that it should become the Body and Blood. And
the reader will observe, that several of the citations under
the foregoing head, prove, that a material Sacrifice may be
‘rational,’ as well as ‘unbloody.’ And, says Theodoret?, “ He
takes away the first, that He may establish the second; by
the first He means the Sacrifice of irrational creatures, by the
second the rational Sacrifice offered by Himself.” Whether
he means the oblation of Christ’s sacramental or of His
natural Body, it is all one to my present purpose, that is to
prove, that a material Sacrifice may be called a rational Sacrifice, in the judgment of the ancients.
3. It may seem very strange to some moderns to be told, that the ancients looked upon the oblation of a material thing, when performed according to the laws of Christ and the Church, to be a spiritual oblation; yet certamly such were their thoughts, such were their words. St. James’s Liturgy, in the Prothesis, teaches the Priest to say*, “I am not worthy to hold up my eyes toward this spiritual Table.” I am indifferent whether by Table my reader understand the proper Altar, or the side Altar, or the Bread and Wine placed upon one or the other: for in which signification soever you are pleased to take it, yet the thing is ‘material,’ but the epi- thet ‘spiritual.’ The Priest, when he presents the elements on the Altar, is by the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom? directed to say, “ Enable us to offer the gifts and spiritual Sacrifices for our own sins, and for the errors of the people.” The Apostles are introduced in the Constitutions saying‘, “ Christ becom- ing Man for us, and offering to His God and Father a spiri- tual Sacrifice before His Passion, commanded us only to do the same ;” clearly referring to those words in the Institu- tion, “Do this in remembrance of Me,” which were spoken to the Apostles only ; and what Christ there gave, or offered to God, was His Sacramental Body and Blood, the Bread and Wine, which are therefore here called the spiritual Sacrifice. And of no other Sacrifice, but the Sacramental Body and
z g. p. 46. Ap. b c. p. 57. Ap. “ a. p. 54 Ap. ¢ f. p. 47. Ap.
Ι
A MATERIAL SACRIFICE. 93
Blood, could it be said that the Apostles only were com- SECT. manded to offer it. For prayers, and praises, and lay offer- ings, were to be offered by the people; but the Apostles, and they who were commissioned by them, were the only proper officers for making the oblation of Bread and Wine as the Body and Blood, as shall hereafter be made to appear. Cyril of Jerusalem has these words‘, “Solomon, in Ecclesiastes, representing this grace in a mystery, says, Eat thy bread » with gladness, thy spiritual bread — and drink thy wine with gladness, thy spiritual wine ;” he undoubtedly speaks of the Eucharist, for the treatise from whence they are taken is wholly on this subject; and further, he had just before re- cited the words of Institution®: and if the Bread and Wine are spiritual, no wonder that the Sacrifice of them is spiritual too. Eusebius says‘, “Our Saviour, and all Priests from Him, celebrate a spiritual Sacrifice in bread and wine.” Ter- tullian, having premised a distinction between earthly and spiritual sacrifices’, adds, that “even from the beginning, the earthly sacrifices of the elder son, that is, Israel, were before hand exemplified in Cain; and the sacrifices of the younger brother Abel, that is, our people the Christians, shewed to have been contrary to them,” that is, to have been spiritual, according to his present distinction; so that in Tertullian’s opinion, Abel’s was a ‘spiritual sacrifice.’ And since not only Cyril of Jerusalem, but even Clement of Alex- andria®, and many other of the ancients (as will hereafter appear) do give the epithet ‘spiritual’ to the Eucharistical symbols, which yet are certainly material things; I can con- ceive no reason why any man should conclude that they are not a material Sacrifice, (except he will first believe with the Papists, that the bread and wine are annihilated,) and yet at the same time a spiritual Sacrifice, for reasons which will in due time be laid before the reader.
Nay, it is further observable, that the ancients did not Ancients
2 : : deny Bread only assert the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist to have been and Wine
rational and spiritual Sacrifices; but Theodoret expressly ἢ {ie #" 4 e. p. 19. Ap. τὸ ὑπὲρ πολλῶν ἐκχυνόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν © The words immediately preceding ἁμαρτιῶν.
are, ‘Opas ἐνταῦθα ποτήριον λεγόμενον. th. ip, 16s. ape a6:
ὃ λαβὼν Ἰησοῦς μετὰ χεῖρας, καὶ edxa- & |. p. 8. Ap.
ριστήσας, εἶπε, Τοῦτο Mov ἐστὶ τὸ αἷμα BY bs ips 7: cope
CHAP. II.
have been
corporeal
- Sacrifices.
This the language of Scripture. 1 Cor. xv. ver. 40.
94. THE EUCHARIST
says, “ We find Melchisedec offering to God not irrational: sacrifices, but Bread and Wine;” and St. Jerome says*, “ Ir- rational sacrifices are no longer to be offered, but Bread and Wine, that is, the Body and Blood of Christ.” Eusebius Czesariensis', “ Melchisedec never appears to have offered corporeal Sacrifices, but blessed Abraham with Bread and Wine.” Eusebius, and St. Jerome, and Theodoret, certainly understood the language of the primitive Church equally at least to any now living, and they were so far from thinking that a Sacrifice of bread and wine might not be a spiritual Sacrifice, that they do very clearly and roundly deny that such Sacrifices are irrational or corporeal.
It is evident that St. Paul uses the same language, for he speaks of a “spiritual body ;” and in the same chapter calls the entire Person of Christ Jesus a “quickening spirit.” Now if the ancient heretics, who denied that Christ had a real body, were again to appear in the world, how would our adversaries be able to confute them upon their hypothesis? If they should tell these heretics that the words ‘spirit’ and ‘ spiritual’ are not always so meant as wholly to exclude matter and body, as they must do if they would in earnest answer the allegations of these men from the words of St. Paul, it is very evident that in answering them they must at once answer their own cayils against us, when they conclude that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice in which no material thing is offered, because it is often called a ‘ spiritual’ Sacrifice.
If we enquire into the reason why men of such eminent learn- ing and knowledge, as some that seem to have espoused this notion must be allowed to have been, were led into this opinion, Imust profess I know of no other reason but this, that according to our modern philosophy, ‘spirit’ and ‘spiritual’ are opposed to ‘matter’ and ‘material;’ but it is evident from what has been said, that in this the language of the present and of the pri- mitive ages do very much differ: but if the prejudices of our present adversaries are not very deeply rooted, they will cer- tainly be convinced, that to be material and spiritual are not inconsistent in the judgment of the ancient Church, and of St. Paul himself: and it is very observable, that the Apostle uses this way of expression even when he speaks in allusion
id. p. 44. Ap. 1.5. ΚΣ; 29: Ap. 1h. p. 16. Ap. 1. 4.
A MATERIAL SACRIFICE. 95
to the Eucharist. He calls the manna “ spiritual meat,” and 8 ae T: the water of the rock “ spiritual drmk.” Now will any man
from thence conclude, that it was immaterial manna and 4 water? Suppose some of this manna and water had been offered in sacrifice to God, and therefore been called a spiri- tual sacrifice, would any man of common sense have from thence concluded, that they had lost all their physical or corporeal latitude, longitude, and profundity, and were . turned into spirits or mere ideas ?
I own that the words ‘spiritual’ and ‘rational’ do sometimes, in the writings of the ancients, signify the same with ‘mental’ or ‘intellectual,’ and that prayers and praises are frequently called ‘spiritual and rational Sacrifices ;? and therefore I shall not conclude that any passage in the ancients is to be taken of the oblation of Bread and Wine, because either of these two epithets are joined with the word ‘Sacrifice,’ except some other circumstances concurring do determine this to be the writer’s meaning ; as, on the other side, our adversaries ought not to conclude, that any thing is perfectly immaterial, merely because it is called spiritual or rational: and when I call the Eucharistic Sacrifice material, I must here declare, that I mean nothing by it, but that it has such a real corporeal extension as natural bread and wine, as all other bodies are allowed to have; and that I do not intend it as a word of the same adequate import with the Greek ὑλικὸς ; for I appre- hend, that some of the ancients may have asserted, that the Eucharistic Sacrifice is diXos™, as well as ἀσώματος, but then they did not mean ‘ perfectly immaterial’ or ‘ without bodily substance,’ but not gross or dreggy".
Now I shall proceed to produce my authorities for the Method for offering material bread and wine in the Eucharist, when I ['¢ Proving have first desired my reader to observe the following par- Sacrifice. ticulars, viz.
m [The Ed. has been unable to find
any passage, but the one appended, to which Johnson himself afterwards re-
ἀὐλοτάτη γὰρ αὕτη θυσία τῷ κατὰ φύσιν, ἁπλῷ καὶ avVAG πρέπουσα Θεῷ." S. Cyril. Alex. contra Jul., lib. x.
fers; and which does not immediately belong to the Eucharistic Sacrifice. ““ Προσκομίζομεν yap εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας τῷ Θεῷ πάντα τρόπον ἐπιεικείας, πίστιν, ἐλπίδα, ἀγάπην, δικαιοσύνην, ἔγκρέτειαν, τὸ εὐπειθὲς καὶ εὐήνιον, ἀκαταλήκτους δοξολογίας, καὶ τὰς ἑτέρας τῶν ἀρετῶν.
n [‘* But still I look on the word unbloody as appropriated to the sacri- fice or oblation of material and inani- mate things; and by Christian writers to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist.” Omitted in 2nd Ed. ]
CHAP. ΤΊ.
Evidence for a mate- rial Sacri- fice from single Fathers.
96 THE EUCHARIST
First, That I cite no authorities, but what relate to the Eucharist strictly so called, or to the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ.
Secondly, That I indifferently cite those passages, in which the things offered are called Bread and Wine, the Body and Blood of Christ, Christ Himself, or the antitypes of Christ, or of His Body and Blood; because I shall hereafter shew, that the ancients styled the matter of the Sacrament and Sacrifice by any of these names.
Thirdly, If the words do evidently express or imply some- thing material to be offered in the Eucharist properly so called, I take it for granted, that thereby is meant the Eucharistical Bread and Wine, or the Sacramental Body of Christ Jesus: for there is no other material thing there to be offered.
Fourthly, Many of my citations will prove, not only that the Sacramental Bread and Wine are called a Sacrifice, but that they are offered up by a solemn act of oblation in the Eucharist; and that therefore the Bread and Wine do not only represent a Sacrifice, but are themselves a Sacrifice, though they derive all their propitiatory virtue from the principal, personal Sacrifice of Christ Himself. But because my next collection of authorities will not every one of them reach this last point, therefore I will subjoin a particular account of the testimonies of antiquity on this head.
Fifthly, And because in some of my citations, the matter of the oblation is called Bread and Wine, in others, the anti- types of Christ’s Body and Blood, in others, His very Body and Blood, in others, Christ, or our Redeemer; lest some should from hence infer that two or three several things are meant by these several expressions, and from thence endeavour to obscure or annul my proof of the Sacrifice; I shall shew that by all these expressions the same things are meant; and to this purpose I shall be obliged to present my reader with a scheme of the doctrine of the Eucharist, according to the sentiments of the primitive Church of the first four centuries.
And now I begin my authorities for a material Sacrifice ; first from Theodoret, who says®, “ that the Church offers the symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood;” and in one of his
ο ἃ, p. 45. Ap.
A MATERIAL SACRIFICE. 97
Dialogues, he introduces an orthodox Christian asking Eran- jstes a heretic?, “ Of what are the mystic symbols offered by the Priests of God a sign?” Eranistes answers, “ Of the Body and Blood of our Lord.” Orthodoxus in the following part of the Dialogue allows of this. Cyril of Alexandria, as before cited’, “The table that had the shew-bread signifies the un- bloody Sacrifice of the loaves,” and‘, “‘ We celebrate the un- bloody Sacrifice in Churches, and so approach the mystic eulogies,” that is, the Sacramental Body and Blood. Chrysos- tom‘, “The Sacrifice is in four] hands and all things 116 decorously prepared.” “It is a great honour for them, be they martyrs or more than martyrs, to have their names mentioned in the presence of our Lord, when His death is celebrated, even the tremendous Sacrifice of His ineffable mysteriest ;” and" “can we do otherwise than prevail with God, when the tremendous Sacrifice lies in open view?” again’, “the priest calls upon us to pray,—and give thanks, while the tremendous Sacrifice lies in open view ;” lastly*, he interprets Malachi’s Mincha to be the unbloody Sacrifice, and the incense to be the prayer offered with the Sacrifice; this he calls the chief or first Sacrifice, the Sacrifice better than the world, and reckons nine other, the last of which is Preaching. St. Austin is very clear in this point, as when he says’, “ What shall I say of the Body and Blood of Christ, the only Sacrifice for the salvation of men? although our Lord Himself say, ‘Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man,’ &c., yet does not the Apostle teach us, that it is pernicious to those who misuse it? for he says, ‘ Whosoever eateth and drinketh unworthily,’” &e. And’, “Christians celebrate the memory of that same Sacrifice, that was offered by the sacred oblation and participation of His Body and Blood.” At another place, “To sacrifice to God, as we very often do, according to that rite only which [God] hath enjoined by the revelation of the New Testament, is part of that worship which is due to God alone ;” as also, “ Jnstead of all those oblations and Sacrifices, Christ’s Body
LAS 16. Ap. .ΜΟ 39. Ap.
4 ϑ p- ir ἜΣ Ε ἂν es
"1. p. 44. Ap. ΓΝ, p. 36. Ap.
& ΟΣ}: 41. Ap: « H. p. 86. Ap.
t Ibid. 1. 9. p. 41. Ap. a J. p. 36. Ap.
" 0. p. 43. Ap. > EB. p. 86. Ap. 1. 9.
JOHNSON. H
SECT. if
CHAP. Il.
98 THE EUCHARIST
is offered and communicated to the receivers.” Again‘, “Thou art a Priest for ever, (speaking to Christ,) for the Priesthood and Sacrifice of Aaron is vanished, and what Mel- chisedec brought forth, when he blessed Abraham, is every where offered under the Priesthood of Christ :” and‘, “when Melchisedec blessed Abraham, then first that Sacrifice appeared, which is now offered by Christians throughout the world ;” more fully yet*, in those words, “what he adds of eating bread (he speaks of 1 Sam. 11. 36.) elegantly describes the very sort of Sacrifice, concerning which the Priest Himself saith, the Bread which I will give is My flesh; this is that sort of Sacrifice which is according to the order of Melchise- dec, not of Aaron: he that readeth, let him understand ;” by which he intimates that none could understand him that was not a communicant. In another place‘, “ Christ is the offerer and the oblation, of which thing He designed the Sacrifice of the Church to be a Sacrament, which as being the Body of Him that is the Head, learns to offer herself by Him, of which our Sacrifice, the many and various sacrifices of the ancient saints, were but signs ;” and, “ We being many are one body, this is the Sacrifice of Christians ;—in that oblation which she offers she herself is offered,” for the bread repre- sents the body of Christian people as well as the natural Body of Christ. Again", “when the Sacrifice of our Redeemer is offered, or alms-deeds are performed in the Church;” and elsewhere’, “'The sacrifice of the Jews was according to the order of Aaron in the victims of cattle, and this in a mys- tery ; the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of the Lord was not yet—which Sacrifice is now diffused throughout the world :” and lastly he says*, “his mother Monica knew that from the Altar that Holy Victim was distributed, by which the hand-writing against us is blotted out.” Gaudentius Brixiensis declares for the material Sacrifice, in saying}, “Christ being offered in every Church under the mystery of Bread and Wine, does refresh and enliven, being believed,” &c. And™ “when He says in the Gospel, ‘I am the true vine,’ He
: D. p. 35. Ap hx. p. 35. Ap B. p. 35 Ap : q. p. 33. Ap oe Ree A. p. 35. Ap. a. p. 30. Ap. & 2. p. 35. Ap. m Ibid. p. 30.1. 10.
.
|
A MATERIAL SACRIFICE. 99
sufficiently shews, that whatever Wine is offered in the figure
SECT. I
of His Passion, is His Blood.” And again”, “Christ appointed - --
the Sacraments of His Body and Blood to be offered under the figure of Bread and Wine.” St. Hierom says of Mel- chisedec®, that “representing Christ, he offered Bread and Wine, and dedicated the Christian mystery in the Body and Blood of our Saviour.” At another place he asserts?P, that “Christ instructed His Apostles to say, Our Father Which art in Heaven, daily in the Sacrifice of His Body.” And again’, “ Melchisedec dedicated the Sacrament of Christ in a pure and simple Sacrifice, that is, Bread and Wine.” As
also", ‘our mystery is denoted in the word ‘order, irrational Ps. ex. 4.
victims being no longer to be offered by Aaron, but Bread and Wine, that is, the Body and Blood of Christ being made an oblation.” And’, “ Ye [priests] do offer loaves, the loaves of shew-bread, in all the churches throughout the world, growing from one loaf:” I suppose, he means that in which Christ instituted the Eucharist. Macarius says the same thing plain enough’, “At that time the great men, and righteous, and prophets, knew that a Redeemer was coming
but they knew not that Bread and Wine was to be offered in the Church, as the antitypes of His Body and Blood.” St. Ambrose supports this doctrine, for" “ Formerly,” says he, “a lamb was offered, a calf was offered; now Christ is offered: and He offers Himself, as a Priest, for the forgive- ness of our sins: in an image here [on earth], in the verity there, where He interposes as an Advocate for us, with the Father.” And*, “ If you offer the Body on the Altars,” &c. and especially’, “ Though Christ is not now seen to offer, yet He Himself is offered on earth, when His Body is offered ; nay, He apparently offers in” or “by us.” Ephrem Syrus says’, “The tremendous mysteries full of immortality are offered to God,” meaning the Eucharistical Bread and Wine, which in the foregoing words he calls “the gifts laid in open
n d.p. 31. Ap. stitutes ‘ primitive believers.’ History © b. p. 28. Ap. of Eucharist, part i. c. 8. [2nd ed.] P g. p. 28. Ap. [“les anciens fidéles,” p. 165. ed. th. p. 28. Ap. Amsterdam: 1671.]}
Fj. p. 29. Ap m. p. 27. Ap
Seat. 29. A ; Ap.
t
n. = 16 pe 2f-
b. p. 26. Ap. Monsieur Larroque, Yc. p. 26. Ap. by a strange sleight of hand, for ‘ great Za. p.2 men,’ ‘ righteous,’ and ‘ prophets,’ sub-
H 2
CHAP. Il.
100 THE EUCHARIST
view.” We have already heard St. Gregory Nazianzen*, speaking, not only of ‘unbloody’ Sacrifices in the Christian Church, but of Sacrifices, from the supposed defilement whereof Julian, when he apostatized, ‘expiated his hands ;’ ‘Sacrifices’ and ‘Altars,’ which were defiled by the Arians and others ; and therefore material, beyond all dispute or doubt. And in another place, speaking of himself», “ How should I dare,” says he, “to offer the external Sacrifice, the antitype of the great mysteries, if I had not first offered myself a sacrifice to God?” Χο. And once more’, “ Will they drive me from the Altars? I know another Altar — which is wholly the work of the mind, and the ascent is by theory, [1. 6. contemplation :] by this Altar I will stand, on this I will offer sacrifice, oblations, and holocausts, as much exceeding those that are now offered, as the verity is more excellent than the shadow.” These words at first sight may seem to give some countenance to the cause of our adversaries, as supposing some mental Sacrifice more excellent than that of the Eucharist ; but let me observe, that though the supposed Altar and Sacrifice of St. Gregory were really as much to be preferred before the Altar and Sacrifice of the Church, as he fancied them to be; yet still it must be allowed, that the Altar and Sacrifice from which he expected to be driven, were material and real; for he could be driven from none that was immaterial. And as for the Father’s theoretical Altar and Sacrifice, I shall contentedly leave it to our ad- versaries, and let them make the best of it: for I believe it will puzzle the most metaphysical head to imagine what Sacrifice, either of prayer or praise, or whatever else they please, could excel the Sacrifice of the Christian Church, when offered as it ought to be, with all holy dispositions and affections. I will suppose that St. Gregory meant an imagi- nary oblation of the very natural Body of Christ Jesus; and yet cannot at the same time persuade myself, either that this imaginary oblation was more excellent than that in the Eucharist ; or that this imaginary oblation could not be per- formed at the material Altar as well as any where else: nay, if St. Gregory thought this imaginary oblation to be of so great worth, I apprehend it was his duty to offer it, as often = betemd. ps2 Avy: Bra. Ips 2 eps © cD. ΤΑ;
A MATERIAL SACRIFICE. 101
as he performed the external oblation ; especially if it be con- sidered, that the imaginary sacrifice of St. Gregory was to be offered while he was in the body; while he could ascend to the supernal regions “ by theory only.” We readily accept the unanswerable proof, that the Father gives us of an ex- ternal sacrifice; and as to the other sacrifice, we will further consider it, when our adversaries have first been pleased to inform us what it was. And as for St. Gregory himself, I can only say, that the greatest men, when they indulge the warmth of their own present thoughts, have said things which it would be very hard for themselves to explain. But St. Gregory makes ample amends for this excess of rhetoric by what he has said at other places, and especially where he calls? “the gifts,’ or oblations made in the Eucharist, “cleansing or expiatory Sacrifices;” and the Altar, “the divine Table, the holy receptacle of these gifts.” St. Basil the Great* represents the great danger “of sacrificing the Body of our Lord while we are under any defilement,” and speaks‘ of the Priest’s “ consummating and distributing the Sacrifice.” Hilary the Deacon says®, “that the Bishop offers the Sacrifice instead of Christ.” Cyril of Jerusalem? [speaks] of a “prayer offered while the holy and most tremendous Sacrifice lies in open view;”’ and’, “ we offer Christ slain for our sins.” He has before been cited* for his speaking of “ conse- crating the spiritual oblation,” and of “ beseeching God over the Sacrifice of propitiation.” St. Athanasius says over and again’, “ Melchisedec was the first example of offering the unbloody Sacrifice, viz. Bread and Wine, and that therefore it was said to our Saviour, Thou art a Priest according to the order of Melchisedec.” Eusebius™ speaks of “offering the ob- lation, and giving to every one his share :”” and" that “ Altars were every where erected for unbloody rational Sacrifices, according to the new mysteries of the New Testament.” Mental devotions require no Altar, nor are they the new mysteries. And again, as cited before in part®, “ Melchisedec
dg. p. 21. Ap. k f. p. 19. Ap. 1. 5. eb. p. 23. Ap. ΕΣ ἘΠ Bags εὐ ἢ 28. ἌΡ. m a, p. 1ὅ. Ap. & Ὁ. p. 20. Ap. « d. p. 15. Ap. h f, p. 19: Ap. J. 15. ° h. p. 16. Ap.
me pal Ap:
SECT. ἐδ
CHAP, I.
102 THE EUCHARIST
being a Priest of the Gentiles, nowhere appears to have used corporeal sacrifices, but blessed Abraham by bread and wine. Just in the same manner, first our Saviour, and then all Priests from Him, consummating the spiritual hierurgy [ἱερουργίαν according to the laws of the Church, do represent the mysteries of His Body and saving Blood, in Bread and Wine.” And elsewhere?, “We celebrate the memorial of this Sacrifice on the Table, by the symbols of His Body and Blood, — and are taught by David to say, ‘ Thou hast prepared a Table before me; Thou hast anointed my head with oil :’ expressly signifying the mystical chrism, and the venerable Sacrifices of Christ’s Table; in which, offering unbloody and reasonable Sacrifices, and pleasing to Him, we are taught to make an oblation to God,’ &c. That which im the first place he calls ‘the memorial of a Sacrifice by symbols,’ in the next sentence he calls ‘the Sacrifices of Christ’s Table.’
Dr. Hancock? artfully left out
PE p. 62 Ap:
a [Many of the Fathers called even Baptism itself a Sacrifice, pro- bably for this reason, because in Bap- tism we die with Christ, and by that Sacrament is applied to us the virtue of that Sacrifice upon the cross, as it is also in the other Sacrament. Eus. Dem. Ev. lib. i. c. 10. tells us, that in those words of the Psalmist, Ps. xxiii., ‘ Thou hast prepared a Table before me, Thou hast anointed my head with oil, my cup shall be full,’ are plainly signified the mystical unction, (by which, no doubt, he means Baptism,) and the venerable Sacrifice of Christ’s, whereby we are taught, through Christ our supreme High- Priest, to offer unto God over all, unbloody and rational Sacrifices con- tinually all our life long.
‘Melchior Canus tells us, that many of the Fathers called Baptism a Sacri- fice. St. Chrysostom refers to Baptism those words of the Epistle to the Heb., chap. x. 26, ‘ There remaineth no more sacrifice for sin.’ For though he means by Sacrifice that of Christ on the cross, yet being this is applied by Bap- tism, and that can be administered but once, he thinks it may be said on this account, ‘there remains no more sacri- fice for sin.’ And Theophylact follows him in this, as he does in most other things. And St. Augustine likewise somewhere says, that ‘many expound those fore-cited words of the author to
the first words in citing this
the Hebrews, of that Sacrifice of the Passion of our Saviour, that every one offers for his sins, when he is baptized.’ And he after says, that ‘to him that has received the knowledge of the truth, there remains no more sacrifice for sin, that is to say, he cannot be baptized anew.’ ’—Patres Vindicati, pp. 28-9.
“Sed queris, quid cause plerisque antiquorum fuerit, ut baptismum hos- tiam appellaverint, ideoque dixerint non superesse hostiam pro peccato, quia baptismus repeti non potest. Sane quia in baptismo Christo commorimur, et per hoe sacramentum applicatur nobis hostia crucis, ad plenam peceati remissionem, hine ili baptisma trans- latitia hostiam nuneuparunt, ac post baptisma semel acceptum nullam hos- tiam esse reliquam interpretati sunt : quia baptisma secundum non est.’’— Melchior Canus, Opera, p. 680. ed. Colon. Ag. 1605.
“Οὐκέτι περὶ ἁμαρτιῶν ἀπολείπεται. θυσία, ὃ δὲ λέγει τοιουτόν ἐστιν" ἐκα- θάρθης, ἀπηλλάγης ἐγκλημάτων, γέγο- νας υἱός. ἂν τοίνυν ἐπὶ τὸν πρότερον ἔμετον ἐπιστρέψῃς, πάλιν ἀποκήρυξις μένει καὶ πῦρ, καὶ ὅσα τοιαῦτα. οὐ γάρ ἐστι θυσία Sevrépa.”—S. Chrysostom. Iu Ep. ad Hebreos, cap. x. Hom. xx. tom. xii. p. 186. Ed. Paris. 1735.
“Οὐ τὴν peravolay ἀναίρων λέγει ταῦτα, ὡς τινες ὑπενόησαν, ἀλλὰ δείκ- νυσιν, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστι δεύτερον βάπτισμα" διὸ οὐδὲ δεύτερος θάνατος τοῦ Χριστοῦ.
103
A MATERIAL SACRIFICE,
passage, and then would persuade his reader, that the rest is to be understood of the Sacrifice of Baptism, of which Sacri- fice the Doctor (or those moderns from whom he took it) is the author. And at another place’, “We offer the shew- bread, and the Blood of sprinkling, the Blood of the Lamb, Which takes away the sins of the world, the expiation of our souls.” And if this be not enough, I will add another pas- sage, where he says‘, “Christ Himself delivered to His dis- ciples the symbols of the divine ceconomy, commanding them te offer the image of His own Body; for since God no longer designed bloody sacrifices,—He has by tradition instructed us to use Bread as a symbol of His Body ; as another prophet has reminded us, saying, ‘Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a Body hast Thou prepared me.’” St. Cyprian is a most illustrious witness of this truth. I shall only at pre- sent transcribe one small part of an epistle written by him, against those who put nothing but water into the Eucharis- tical chalicet, “We are given to understand, that the Lord’s tradition be observed in offering the cup,—that the cup which is offered in commemoration of Him, be offered mixed with wine.” And then he cites those words, “ ‘Thou art a Priest for ever, after the order of Melchisedec,’ which order being derived and descending from that Sacrifice, is this, that Mel- chisedec was priest of the most high God, that he offered bread and wine, that he blessed Abraham,—and that the blessing of Abraham might be duly celebrated, an image of the Sacri- fice of Christ, consisting of bread and wine, goes before it. And the Holy Ghost by Solomon describes beforehand the figure of our Lord’s Sacrifice, the immolated Sacrifice of Bread and Wine.” And, “That Priest acts in Christ’s stead, who imitates what Christ did, and offers to the Father a true and full Sacrifice in the Church of God, if he so begin to offer as he sees Christ to have offered.” Origen teaches the same
Θυσίαν yap τοῦτον καλεῖ, ὡς Kal ἐν τοῖς κατόπιν. Μιᾷ γὰρ θυσίᾳ τετελείω- κεν εἰς τὸ διηνεκές᾽ τὸ γὰρ βάπτισμα ἡμῶν τὸν θάνατον εἰκονίζει τοῦ Χριστοῦ." —Theophylact. in eodem loco, p. 982. Ed. Lindsell. Londini. 1636.
“ Non adhuc pro peccatis relinqui- tur sacrificium: sed de sacrificio de quo tunc loquebatur Apostolus, id est, holocausto Dominice passionis, quod
eo tempore offert quisque pro peccatis suis, quo ejusdem passionis fide dedi- catur, et Christianorum fidelium no- mine baptizatus imbuitur.’’—S., Au- gustin. Ep. ad Romanos Expositio, tom. iii. pars 2. p. 937. Ed. Paris. 1680. |
reps 15 ΒΡ.
* ips 18. ἈῬΣ
t m. p. 11—13. Ap.
SECT. I.
104 THE EUCHARIST
CHAP. doctrine in those remarkable words", “ Let Celsus, as being ἘΞ ignorant of God, render his Eucharistic Sacrifices to demons ; but we, appeasing the Creator of the universe, do also eat the Bread that is offered with thanksgiving, and prayer made over the gifts, after they have been made a certaim holy Body.” He does not say the Body of Christ, because his discourse was chiefly intended for the confutation of the hea- then; and immediately after, “ Celsus is pleased to offer to demons, but we to Him that said, ‘ Let the earth bring forth, ἢ &e. as Gen. i. 11, &c. Tertullian bears witness to the same truth in these words*, “ Very many on the stationary,”’ that is, fasting “ days, think they ought not to be present at the prayers of the Sacrifices, lest their fasts be broken, by re- ceiving the Body of our Lord; does, therefore, the Eucharist slacken our devotion to God, or rather tie us faster to God? Will not your station be the more solemn, if you perform it at God’s Altar? However by taking the body of our Lord, and reserving It [to be eaten afterwards], both will be safe ; the participation of the Sacrifice, and the performance of your duty, that is, fasting.” He distinguishes between the prayers, and the Sacrifice; and he tells you, what the Sacrifice was, viz. the Sacramental Body of Christ ; for ‘to receive the Body of Christ,’ and ‘partake of the Sacrifice,’ signify the same thing in this citation. Andy, “The devil imitates the Divine Sacraments; he baptizes some that believe in him—and if I remember right, Mithra” a Persian idol “signs in the forehead his own soldiers, and celebrates the oblation of bread.”’? And it is to be considered, that it was such ‘an oblation of bread’ as was ‘in the Divine Sacraments.’ Irenzus is very full to this purpose’, “Christ charging His disciples to offer first- fruits to God of His own creatures—took such bread as is a creature, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is My Body;’ and He declared likewise the Cup to be His Blood; which [Cup], according to our doctrine, is a thing created [by God] ;” this was what Ivenzeus’s adversaries denied, “and taught the new oblation of the New Testament, which the Church, receiving from the Apostles, offers throughout the world.” To this Sa- chap. i. 10, crifice he applies the words of Malachi, and adds, “ Manifestly
ua. p. 9. Ap. 7 τς ν». Ὁ: Σ j. p. 8. Ap. atc
A MATERIAL SACRIFICE. 105
signifying by these words, that the former people, the Jews, shall cease to offer to God; but that in every place sacrifices shall be offered, and that pure.” He cannot mean mental sacrifices; for the Jews do not cease to offer prayers and praises; but material sacrifices, which the Jews cannot offer, since they have no temple. St. Justin Martyr is as clear in this point, as any Father whose words I have yet produced; as for mstance, where he says*, “The oblation of the cake, which was ordered to be offered for those that were cleansed of the leprosy, was a type of the Bread of the Eucharist, which the Lord Jesus Christ has by tradition in- structed us to offer, for a memorial of His Passion.” And presently after>, “concerning the Sacrifices offered in every place to God by us Gentiles, that is, the Bread of the Eu- charist and Cup of the Eucharist, He then foretold, saying, we should glorify His name.” Here he refers to Mal. i. 10, 11. In the following citation® he refers to Isa. xxxiii. 16. “ In this prophecy he clearly speaks of the Bread, which our Christ has by tradition instructed us to offer for a memorial of His Incarnation, for the sake of them that believe in Him.” In the first and third of these citations from Justin, I have turned ποιεῖν, ‘to offer,’ as the most learned Dr. Hickes has proved that it here signifies’. It is an indignity to the Martyr to suppose, that our Saviour is by him represented as com- manding us to ‘make bread.’ In the second citation, Justin uses the word προσφέρειν, and not ποιεῖν ; and the learned Voigtus, though he was no friend to the Sacrifice, is forced to acknowledge that Justin asserts an oblation of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist¢.
SECT. 1.
I proceed to allege the public testimonies, which synods Evidence of
and councils have given to this doctrine. Now the synod
a material Sacrifice
of Constantinople, held A.D. 754, was too late to be τος coun
cited upon this occasion, if there were not a very singular honour due to this numerous congress of learned and pious Bishops, on account of that noble opposition they made against image worship. They declared against images of wood and
a Ὁ, p. 3. Ap. e {“Justinus certe Dial. cum Try- Pace p. o. Ap. phone, f. 260. panem Eucharisticum © d. p. 3. Ap. vocat Sacrificium.’’—De Altaribus, p. 4 See Christian Priesthood, pp.58— 53. ]
CHAP. 1}
106 THE EUCHARIST
stone, and that upon this principle; that Jesus Christ had given us one only image of His Body in the Eucharist, and therefore for this reason, among others, condemned the blind zeal of those who were then for bringing other images into the Church; but the adverse party, in less than forty years after, did so far prevail, that in the second synod of Nice, they got the decrees of this synod of Constantinople to be re- versed, established the worship of molten and graven images, and laid it down for a principle‘, that the Eucharist was not an image of Christ, but Christ Himself: and though the word ‘transubstantiation’ was not coimed till some ages after; yet from this time forward the ancient doctrine of the Church, in relation to this article of religion, was gradu- ally altered and corrupted, and at last wholly subverted. Now the doctrine of the ancient Church, to which this synod gave their authoritative testimony, was this’, that “ Christ commanded the substance of material bread, selected [from the main mass of oblations] to be offered as His image, not representing the figure of a man, lest idolatry should be introduced.” It was not my design to swell my citations, by producing authorities of the fifth, sixth, or seventh ages, much less of those that are later; but I thought it not amiss for once, to go a great deal out of my road, on purpose to pay my respects to the synod of Constantinople, for which all sincere Protestants ought to have a very. singular venera- tion. The next synod I cite, is the third, alias the sixth of Carthage, which in the twenty-fourth canon" charges, that “in the Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ, nothing be offered, but what the Lord hath delivered, that is, Bread and Wine mixed with water.” They not only mention the matérial oblation, as made in the Sacrament, properly so called ; but suppose the oblation enjomed by Christ. Further, Honoratus and Urbanus, in the forty-eighth canon of the same council (according to the common division) observe’, that “it had both now, and in time past, been resolved to prohibit Sacrifices after dinner ;” and if any one doubt what these Sacrifices were, that were to be offered fasting, he will
f The learned reader may see how 52. Ap. 1. 14. Du Pin countenances these Constan- ee Appendix, p. 50. tinopolitan Fathers, Cent. viii. p. 138. Ρ. 50. Ap. [2nd Ed. ]
A MATERIAL SACRIFICE. 107
be informed by the twenty-ninth canon, which provides, that “the Sacraments of the Altar be celebrated by such as are fasting only ;” and lest you should imagine, that the Sacrifice mentioned in the forty-eighth canon, was that of prayer only, it is added, that “if commendation of a deceased Bishop be to be performed, it shall be done by prayers only, if it happen that they who are to perform it have broken their fast.” So that prayers might be offered after dinner, but the Sacrifice might not. The synod of Gangra*, in the fourth canon, censures them who “ refuse to partake of the oblation, when it is made by a married Priest ;” and therefore by the ‘ obla- tion’ can mean nothing but the Sacramental Body and Elood. We have before seen, that one usual name given to the Eucharistic Bread and Wine, by single Fathers, is that of ‘ oblation,’ or ‘ Sacrifice ;) that they were as commonly dis- tinguished by this title, as by the other of mysteries or Sacra- ments, is what no true antiquarian will dispute; and it is very evident that this was the language of the Church itself, if we may judge by the Nicene canons, which were compiled by the most full representative of the whole Church, that ever was held before; for by the eleventh of these canons! it is provided, that “they who have transgressed,” that is, done sacrifice to idols, ‘“‘ without compulsion, shall continue three years among the hearers, be substrators seven years, and for three years communicate with the people in prayer, with- out the oblation.” Prayer was so far from being thought, or called ‘the oblation,’ that a man might partake of the prayers, even those wherein the Sacrifice was offered, and yet be denied the privilege of receiving the material oblation, that is, the Sacramental Bread and Wine. That the peni- tents here spoken of, were allowed to be present during the whole time that the Eucharist was celebrated, and so might join in with the prayers and praises of the communicants, appears from this, that they were called συνιστάμενοι, or penitents that stood together with the faithful, after the catechumens and other penitents were dismissed; and are therefore said in this canon “to communicate with the people in prayer;” and lest any one should please himself with a fancy, that the Eucharist is called the oblation, because it was
k p. 49. Ap. 1 p. 50. Ap.
SECT. Li
CHAP. II.
108 THE EUCHARIST
‘ given’ or ‘ offered’ to the people; let it be observed, that by the eighteenth canon™ of this council, the Deacons are pro- hibited to give the Eucharist, or distribute the consecrated symbols to the Priest, “because,” as these holy Fathers express it, “ neither canon nor custom permits, that the Deacons who have not power to offer, should give the Body of Christ to [the Priests], who do” or can “ offer.” It is certain the Dea- cons could offer, that is, distribute the Communion to the people ; but they could not offer in the sense here intended, that is, they could not perform the solemn oblation of the Eucharist, as a Sacrifice to Almighty God; and that there- fore the Eucharistical symbols are called ‘the oblation,’ from their having been thus offered to God, before they were distributed. This will appear yet more evident from the canons of the synod of Ancyra. The fifth canon of this synod" requires, that they who had eaten things offered to idols, but with tears in their eyes, thereby signi- fying their inward aversion, should after having been peni- tents for three years, be received to communion, “but with- out the oblation.” But if they did not eat, but only went to the idol temple, that then they should be penitents for two years only, and the third year “should communicate with- out the oblation.” By the sixth canon of the same synod®, they who were prevailed upon to eat things offered to idols by threats only, were after somewhat more than three years’ penitence, to “communicate without the oblation for two years.” By canon the seventh, others are, after two years’ penitence, to be received to Communion ; but “ whether with or without the oblation,”’ is left to the Bishop’s discretion. By the eighth canon, they who had through compulsion twice or thrice sacrificed to idols, were, after four years’ penitence, to be admitted to communicate without the oblation for two years. By the ninth canon, they who had forced their Chris- tian brethren to do sacrifice to idols, are admitted, after nine years’ penitence, “to communicate for one year without the oblation.” And by the twenty-fourth canon, diviners or con- jurers, after three years’ penitence, are admitted to “ prayer without the oblation for two years.” Now the question is what that ‘oblation’ was, which was denied to these penitents.
m p. 50. Ap. n p. 49. Ap. ° p. 49. Ap.
A MATERIAL SACRIFICE. 109
Our adversaries, if they will be true to their cause, must say, either that it was prayer and praise, or at the most, alms for the poor, or first-fruits for the Bishop and Clergy. Now that it was not prayer, is evident to a demonstration ; for the twenty-fourth canon admits them to prayer, but not to the oblation ; by which not only a difference is made between the prayer and oblation ; but the latter is clearly made the greater privilege of the two: for they that were thought worthy to join in prayer, are yet forbid to partake of the oblation; and therefore what can any rational man understand by the ob- lation, but the Bread and Wine offered and consecrated into the Body and Blood of Christ? So Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenus? explain this word; nor do I see that it is capable of any other meaning. If you suppose, that “to communicate without the oblation,” is to eat and drink of the Sacrament, but not to be permitted to bring bread and wine, or any other material offerings to the Altar; this is to suppose, that it was less honourable to join in prayer, and in receiving the Eucharistical symbols, than to provide the outward elements ; and that a man must first be fit to offer prayers to God, before he is worthy to make his oblation to the Priest ; for this is the necessary consequence of this opinion; and yet this opinion is the only evasion that our adversaries can have, from the argument drawn from these canons. But further, the sixteenth canon of this synod does more directly prove that this could not be the meaning of these Fathers. The criminals there mentioned are condemned to fifteen years’ penitence, and then, says the canon, “ having completed five years in communion of prayer, let them touch, taste, ap- proach, or come to the oblation;” for the word ἐφάπτεσθαι cannot with any justice be so turned, as to comport with bringing an oblation to the Church or Altar. The same canon enjoins twenty-five years’ penitence to those who were grosser criminals, and then adds, ‘having completed five
Ρ [Balsamon, on this canon, re- marks: ““Opicay of πατέρες ἐπὶ πεν- ταετίαν τούτους ἐπιτιμᾶσθαι ἤγουν ἐπὶ μὲν τρισὶν ἔτεσιν ὑποπίπτειν, ἐν δὲ δυσὶν εὔχεσθαι μετὰ τῶν πιστῶν, καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἀξιοῦσθαι τῶν θείων ἁγιασμάτων.᾽" And Zonaras: “‘O κανὼν ποιεῖται, ὡς τρία ἔτη ὑποπίπτειν, καὶ δύο ἔτη συνεύ-
χεσθαι τοῖς πιστοῖς" μετὰ δὲ τὴν πεν- ταετίαν, ἀξιοῦσθαι καὶ τῆς τοῦ ἀγαθοῦ μεταλήψεως. And Aristenus: ““ ἐπὶ διετίαν συστήσεται τοῖς πιστοῖς, καὶ μόνων τῶν εὐχῶν κοινωνήσει" καὶ οὕτω μετὰ τὴν πενταετίαν μεθέξει τῆς προσ- φορᾶς." See Beveregii Συνόδικον, tom. i. p. 400.)
SECT. L
CHAP. Il.
110 THE EUCHARIST
years in communion of prayer, let them obtain the oblation.” Now ‘obtaining the oblation’ cannot in any propriety of speech denote any thing but being admitted to receive the offered and consecrated Bread and Wine. And let it not be said, that ‘to offer’ signifies to consecrate; for it is certain it does not primarily and directly, but only as oblation was necessary in order to consecration, and as the solemn words of oblation always made a part of the prayer of consecration ; but the offering and consecrating were ever distinguished in all the Liturgies that I have laid my eyes on, and they were ever denoted by several words; the one by προσφέρειν, προσ- κομίζειν, ἱερατεύειν, &c., the other by ἁγιάζειν, ἀπαρτίζειν, μεταβάλλειν, ἕο. And further, in the fifth, sixth, eighth, and ninth, after specifying the term of years, during which the several penitents were to continue in communion of prayer without the oblation, it is immediately added, “let them come to,” or “ partake of perfection,” or “ be perfectly received,” as it is in the eighth canon. Now I will leave it to any impartial judge, whether bringing an offering, or receiy- ing the Sacrament, (as we usually speak,) be most probably meant by ‘coming to perfection ;’ and it deserves our parti- cular reflection, that the fifth canon expresses it by λαβεῖν τέλειον; so that it is as evident, that τέλειον and προσφορὰ do signify the Sacramental Body and Blood, as λαβεῖν sig- nifies ‘to take ;’ and consequently, that what was taken in the Communion had first been offered. But I suppose that the most ancient canons which are come down to us, are those commonly called Apostolical. Now the second, alias third, of these canons‘ provides, that “no Bishop or Priest do offer any thing in Sacrifice on the Altar, beside what our Lord hath commanded ;” and if any one doubt what those things are, which the Lord commanded to be offered, Justin Martyr, Trenzeus, the other Fathers above cited, and the synod of Carthage above mentioned, will inform him that they are Bread and Wine. ‘This canon therefore supposes that truth for which we contend; namely, that Christ commanded Bread and Wine to be offered. The sixth, otherwise the ninth of these canons, suspends those Bishops, Priests, Dea- cons, and others of the clerical list, “who do not partake of a p. 48. Ap.
A MATERIAL SACRIFICE. 111
the oblation, when it is made.” Now I apprehend, the 5ΈΟΤ. greatest enemies of Priests and Altars will not suppose, that —~
there could be any occasion to censure clergymen for refus- ing to take their share in the offerings which the people brought for their substance ; and that therefore by the obla- tion here could be meant nothing but the Sacramental Body and Blood: but if any man still make a question, what is meant by ‘partaking of the oblation,’ I suppose the next canon will inform him; which suspends those laymen who enter into the Church, and hear the “ Scriptures, but do not stay for prayers and the Communion ;” to “partake of the ob- lation” and “Communion” was the same thing in the primitive Church. The thirty-eighth, alias forty-sixth of these canons provides, that no Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, that “has received Baptism or the Sacrifice from heretics,” shall be continued in his office, but be deposed; and that by Sacrifice they meant the symbols of the Eucharist, is too plain to admit of any doubt; and on what account can they be supposed to be distinguished by this title, but because they had been solemnly offered to God in the preceding prayers ?
As to the Liturgies, I shall allege no citations from the Evidences Latin ; not because they do not speak home to the purpose ; ae Sees for there is not one of them, according to the best of my fem observation, which does not abundantly express in very plain Liturgies. words the material oblation, for which I now contend; but because they are none of them of greater antiquity than the eighth or at most the seventh century, excepting that of Gregory the Great, which therefore, as to what concerns the oblation, the reader has in the Appendix; and in which the Priest prays’ that “the oblation may be accepted by God, that so it may become to us the Body and Blood of Christ Jesus.” Now I suppose I need not inform my reader, what that was which they desired might become the Body and Blood of Christ. And again, after the words of Institution’,
“We offer unto Thee, O Lord, out of what Thou hast given us, a pure and immaculate Sacrifice, the holy Bread of eternal life, and the Cup of everlasting salvation.” The Liturgy of St. Peter, being in reality no other than a Latin Liturgy translated into Greek, uses almost the very same expressions‘,
ΚΟ p. 59. Ap. Sa 59: Δ}. 1. 8. ὅσσ, ' c. p. 58, 59. Ap.
CHAP. Il.
112 THE EUCHARIST
which therefore I shall not repeat. St. Chrysostom’s Liturgy does as plainly express the materiality of the Sacrifice; for in that, the Priest, having presented the Bread and Wine on the Altar, and rehearsed the words of institution, says", “We offer to Thee Thine own of Thine own;” and again, “We offer to Thee this reasonable and unbloody service ; and we beseech Thee, send down Thine Holy Spirit on us, and on the gifts laid in open view.” Now I suppose, what the Priest calls God’s ‘own of His own,’ and ‘the gifts laid in open view,’ are the very same with the ‘ unbloody service ; and upon these gifts, this unbloody service, the Priest prays that the Spirit may descend, “and make them the Body and Blood.” Nothing can be more clear, than that of St. Basil’s Liturgy, which, besides what is common to that and others, hath there these words*, “Most holy Lord, we approach Thine Altar, laying before Thee the antitypes of the Body and Blood of Thy Son Jesus Christ; and we beseech Thee that Thy Holy Spirit may come on these gifts laid in open view.” The more direct oblation goes just beforey, and is thus expressed, “offering to Thee Thine own of Thine own, we sing hymns to Thee.”
The words to this purpose in the Liturgy of St. Mark are’, * Fill this Sacrifice with a blessing from Thee, by the coming of Thy most Holy Spirit ;” and after the words of institution®, “Οὐ Thine own gifts have we laid Thine own before Thee ; and we beseech Thee, send Thy Holy Spirit, and make this Bread the Body, and this Cup the Blood of the new covenant of the Lord.” The Bread and Wine are indisputably the materials which the Priest prays to be made the Body and Blood ; the Bread and Wine were what was laid before God ; the Bread and Wine were the Sacrifices, on which a blessing from Heaven was expected. In St. James's Liturgy, the Priest, after pronouncing the words of institution, says thus?, “We offer unto Thee, O Lord, this unbloody and tremendous Sacrifice — send Thy Holy Spirit upon us, and upon Thy Holy gifts lymg here in open view’,—and make the Bread the holy Body,” &c. As sure as the Bread and Wine are meant,
“ d.p. 58. Ap. 1. 7. *.¢. p..06: Ap. 1) Sao: * g. p. a7. Ap. > g. p. dd. Ap.
y tap. Of2 ἈΡΠῚ: ἢ “ h. p. 55. Ap.
7 ¢, p. 56. Ap.
A MATERI1L SACRIFICE. 113
when the Priest prays, that the Bread may become the Body, the Wine the Blood; so sure is it, that the Bread and Wine were the ‘ gifts,’ or the unbloody and tremendous Sacrifice. As the Clementine Liturgy is allowed to be the most ancient and valuable; so if the present assertors of the Sacrifice were themselves to compose a Liturgy, they could not ex- press their sentiments in clearer or stronger words, than those which they here find ready drawn to their hand; I mean those words presently following the recital of the institution‘. “ We offer unto Thee, our King and our God, according to Christ’s commandment, this Bread, and this Cup.” Now when the most ancient authority is most clear and full, all the rest ought in reason to be explained by it; and this is the present case. For what St. James’s expresses by “the tremendous and unbloody Sacrifice,” the others by τὰ Ya ἐκ τῶν Yav, de Tuis donis ac datis, or the like, St. Clement’s Liturgy explains in right down words, and calls it ‘the Bread and Cup: and though the other Liturgies do give sufficient light to themselves, and to each other, in this matter; yet I think it may be justly said, that this of St. Clement gives an additional light to all the rest; and by being the most ancient, reflects the greater lustre upon the material obla- tion. The plea of our adversaries might have looked less unreasonable, if in the most ancient Liturgy now extant, there had not been an oblation of the Eucharistic Bread and Wine, in such direct words, as will admit of no evasion. And when it is considered, that Tertullian, Irenzeus, and Justin Martyr, do so expressly concur with this Liturgy, in asserting that Bread and Wine were offered in the Eucharist in that age; and the two elder, I mean Irenzus and Justin, do further say that this was done by Christ’s instruction ; I think it as clear a demonstration as a thing of this nature is capable of, that if this Liturgy was not used in the second century, yet that they had one, which in this respect at least agreed with that of Clement. If they had one single Liturgy to oppose to those six, from whence I have produced citations, they might indeed be said to have something to keep them in countenance : some parts of the latter Liturgies, cited by me, are no doubt interpolated, but if any part of them be 4c. p. 53. Ap. L 29.
JONUNSON. I
SECT. 1.
CHAP. I.
The prayer mentioned Apost. Const. lib. Vii: c. 25, considered.
114 THE EUCHARIST
ancient, of which no good antiquarian will doubt, then the words I have cited from them are so; not only because they all agree with that of St. Clement, in having solemn words of oblation, and those placed after the words of institution, and before the prayer for the Divine benediction, or the descent of the Spirit, but because the most genuine undoubted writers of the second century downward do so evidently inform us that there was in those ages an oblation of Bread and Wine made in the Eucharist.
It may perhaps here be said by some that there is‘another consecration prayer extant in the Constitutions, in which there are no oblatory words. Mr. Whiston, if my memory do not deceive me, somewhere in his late books concerning the Con- stitutions, supposes that the form called Εὐχαριστία Μυστικὴ", was a sort of communion service for the use of the Gentile converts; but this I look upon to be a very wide conjecture. As there is in that form no oblation, so neither is there any consecration, nor the words of institution. The Latin title indeed is Gratiarum actio Sacramentalis, which probably may have given occasion to this conjecture, of its being a conse- eration prayer; but I apprehend that the Greek title implies no more than a thanksgiving to be said secretly or with a low voice, at the Communion ; and he that looks into the Liturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom will find many of these mys- tic prayers, and cannot but see that Μυστικῶς, ‘softly’ or ‘secretly,’ is opposed to ἐκφώνως, ‘ with a loud voice,’ through- out those Liturgies: and I apprehend that this prayer was intended to be used before the very long prayer of oblation and consecration’: for before the beginning of that prayer the Bishop is directed to pray καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ἅμα τοῖς πρεσβυ- τέροις, ‘by himself together with the Priests ; and the words suit very well with this occasion; they are these, according to Mr. Whiston’s translation: “ We thank Thee, our Father, for that life which Thou hast made known to us by Jesus Thy Son, by Whom Thou madest all things, and takest care of the whole world ; Whom Thou hast sent to become man for our salvation; Whom Thou hast permitted to suffer, and to die; Whom Thou hast raised up, and been pleased to glorify; and hast set Him down at Thy right hand; by
© Lib. vii. cap. 25. f Lib. vii. cap. 12.
i
A MATERIAL SACRIFICE. 115
Whom Thou hast promised us the resurrection of the dead; sECT. do Thou, O Lord Almighty, everlasting God, so gather toge- = ther Thy Church from the ends of the earth into Thy king- dom, as this [corn] was once scattered, and is now become one loaf. We also, our Father, thank Thee for the precious Blood of Jesus Christ, which was shed for us, and for His precious Body, whereof we celebrate this representation,” (I should rather have translated it ‘the antitypes whereof we are now going to celebrate; Greek, οὗ καὶ ἀντίτυπα ταῦτα ἐπιτελοῦμεν,) “as Himself appoimted us, to shew forth His death®.” This is so far from a prayer of consecration, that it does not so much as come up to the character of a grace before meat ; for there is no blessing craved, either on the Bread and Wine, or on the communicants, but was proper enough to be used by the Bishops and Priests before the holy action. And I apprehend further, that the prayer in the 26th chapter was to be used by the same persons, ἐπὶ τῇ θείᾳ μεταλήψει, ‘at’ or ‘upon’ the communion or distribution, that is, when the consecration was ended, while the deacon was bidding prayer to the people®, just before the adminis- tration of the symbols ; for it seems contrary to the mind of the constitution that it should be said after the receiving ; because at the end of that chapter it is said, “ If any be holy let him approach ; if any one be not, let him become so by repentance ;” which supposes the distribution not yet begun: and whereas the chapter begins with these words, Mera τὴν μετάληψιν οὕτως εὐχαριστήσατε, it must be said, that this prayer was to be used after the clergy had received, and while the people were drawing toward the Altar. : But there are in this Liturgy, and in the Constitutions, of which it is now a part, further evidences of a material obla- tion ; for it callsi “the unbloody Sacrifice the mystery of the New Testament ;” and the mystery of the New Testament is certainly the Body and Blood of Christ, represented in Bread and Wine. It orders the Sacrifice to be put “into the hands of the Bishop,” that is now in being ordained: and orders the Bishop* “to give the oblation,” that is, the Bread, “to
8 [Primitive Christianity Revived, fa. p. 52. Ap. vol. iii. ] κ ἃ, p. 54. Ap. L 14. h Lib. viii. δ: 13, &c.
116 THE SACRAMENTAL BODY
eis ae the people ;” and in a word, all that was produced from the Constitutions under the former head, when I was proving that the unbloody, rational, and spiritual Sacrifice was Bread and Wine, is as apposite to my present purpose, as it was to the former.
Now I am competently well assured, that it will be very difficult for our adversaries to prove that any one of the authorities here produced can otherwise be understood than of the Eucharist strictly so called; and that they do every one of them express, or necessarily suppose, the Sacrifice to be material. I have not always used any words of my own to point out to my reader the force of the proof, because I have that good opinion of the authorities alleged, that if they be not obscured by the printer or myself, they will make their way into my reader’s understanding.
ee And now one would think that the materiality of the saries. Sacrifice were pretty well cleared, so far as the practice and judgment of the primitive Church is capable of giving hght to any dispute in divinity; but my reader is to remember that we have adversaries whose skill chiefly consists in securing their retreat; and though they always make their first onset by affirming and endeavouring to prove, in their way, that the primitive Sacrifice was only..an oblation of prayer and praise; yet when they find they cannot maintain this ground, their next refuge is this, that*though the Eucha- ristical symbols be often called a Sacrifice and oblation, yet this was only on account of their bemg a Sacrament; for that representatives are often called by. the name of their principals; and that therefore the Eucharist, being the repre- sentative of the Sacrifice of Christ’s Body and Blood, does often go under the name of the Sacrifice itself. Now I suppose it is an effectual answer to this pretence to say, and prove, that the Eucharistical Bread and Wine were actually presented to Almighty God by a solemn act of oblation. For from hence it will follow, that the Bread and Wine, or, which is the same thing, the Sacramental Body and Blood, were by the ancients esteemed, not only the representation of a Sacrifice, but a real Sacrifice; and that the sacred symbols were thus offered to God, the Liturgies are a demonstration ; in every one of which a solemn tender of the symbols is made
AND BLOOD OFFERED. 112
to God, after the words of institution have first been pro- SECT. nounced over them, as has been already shewed, and as the 2 reader may satisfy himself, by perusing the transcripts from these Liturgies in the Appendix. It may be pretended that some of these Liturgies are not of such antiquity as is neces-
sary to make them evidences in this case; but since the most ancient is most plain and express in this particular, if
one of them can be said to be more express than the rest, . they might from thence learn that the doctrine of the Sacri-
fice is none of those later additional notions, which the lower
you go in consulting the monuments of the Church, the clearer proof you have of them; for if this were the case,
the later the Liturgy, the more full would the evidence be. And since the case is quite otherwise, and the oldest Liturgy
now extant is a most uncontestable demonstration, that in
the ages and Churches where that was used, the symbols were in a most devout and decorous manner presented to Almighty God; I think this of itself so very strong an argu- ment of the doctrine for which I now plead, that I dare lay
this single authority in the scale against all the artificial reasonings of our adversaries, which are really nothing else
but shifts and palliations, in contradiction to plain and in- controllable matter of fact. But this evidence will appear more weighty still, if it be considered that we have not only
a form of words, and a description of the matter, how this Sacrifice was offered, but we have the main body of the most ancient valuable writers, giving their suffrage for us; for I shall shew my reader, that the Fathers did not only assert that the Sacrament was a Sacrifice, but that it was actually offered to God.
Now Theodoret declares’ that the Church “ offers to God Evidence the symbols,” and™ that the Lamb of God is “ sacrificed,” and” (ost an that the mystical symbols “are offered” to God by the Priests. actualobla- Cyril of Alexandria says®, that holy offices are celebrated ead and with “sanctified hands, and incense is offered, and a pure ™ Sacrifice ; and says of heretics, that? they “sacrifice the Lamb without doors.” St. Chrysostom’ speaks of prayer
l d. p. 45. Ap. 5. a. p. 43. Ap. 1. 7. Brad. 1 45. Ap. pb. p. 43. Ap. n |. p. 45. Ap. 4 f. p. 38. Ap
CHAE: Il.
118 THE SACRAMENTAL BODY
being “ offered with Sacrifice,” and’ that Christ commanded Himself to be “ offered.” St. Austin’, that “ instead of all those (Levitical) sacrifices, Christ’s Body is offered, and com- municated to the receivers ; thatt what Melchisedec brought forth, “is every where offered ;” that" “in the Eucharistical symbols, the Church offers herself :” and that* in our memo- rial there is “ an oblation,” as well as participation “ of Christ’s Body.” GaudentiusY mentions “the wine offered for a figure of His passion ;” and says’, that “Christ commanded the Sacrament to be offered.” St. Jerome brings in Christ saying’, “ye [Priests] offer My loaves ;” and says, that? the Christian priesthood consists in “offermg Bread and Wine, that is, Christ’s Body and Blood;” and* that the Bishop of Rome “ offered a Sacrifice” over the bones of Peter and Paul ; and approves Jovinian’s saying¢, viz. “Christ offered wine for a type of His Blood.” St. Ambrose says‘, “If you offer on the Altars the Body to be transfigured;” and again‘, “ Christ offers by us, whose word sanctifies the Sacrifice which is offered.” And at another place? he speaks of his own “presenting a Sacrifice ;’ and says, that “Christ is offered.” Macarius mentions" “Bread and Wine offered in the Church as antitypes of Christ’s Body and Blood.” Ephrem Syrus, speaking of the Eucharist, saysi, “when the tremen- dous mysteries are offered.” St. Basil declares‘ his abhor- rence of “offering the Body of Christ, while under defile- ment.” St. Gregory Nazianzen speaks! “of his own offering the external Sacrifice, the antitypes of the great mysteries.” Hilary the Deacon supposes”, “ the Priest offers the Sacrifice, as acting instead of our Lord.” Cyril of Jerusalem® says, “we offer Christ slain for our sins.” St. Athanasius®, that “ Melchisedec was the first type of offering the unbloody Sacrifice.’ Eusebius mentions? “making the oblation, and
-
42. Ap.
Ὁ: ἢ» e n. p. 27..Ap. ae Ap. 1. 9. fc. p. 26. Ap.
». 85. A 8 ἃ, p. 26. Ap. ἈΠΖῚ Ἀπ τὰ κα, b hp ie Aas 29H: 86. Δ: ia, p. 25. Ap. 1. 6 Υ a. p. 30. Ap. 1. 10. k a. p. 23. Ap. ad. p. dle Ape a. p. 21. Ap.
ἷ n. p. 29. Ap. 7 b. p. 20. Ap. 1. p. a rs g. p. 19. Ap. ‘ e. p. 28. Ap. °c. p. 17. A
dc. p. 28. Ap. ee yy oy =
AND BLOOD OFFERED. 119
giving to every one his part ;” and further says4, “‘ We offer the shew-bread, and the Blood of sprinkling.” St. Cyprian declares that “the cup offered should be offered mixed with wine.” He speaks* of “offermg wine in the Sacrifice of God and Christ.” He says‘, “neither wine nor water can be offered alone.” He shews, how the Priest in the Eucha- rist" “may offer a full and true Sacrifice ;” and* mentions over and again the “ offering the cup of our Lord.” And he tells us’ how Novatus was censured for “ attempting to offer sacrilegious sacrifices im opposition to the true priest.” Ori- gen says’, “we eat loaves that are offered ;” and? speaks of the care Christiaus took in receiving the Eucharist, “lest any crumb of the consecrated oblation should fall to the ground.” Tertullian” reflects on the priests of Mithra, for imitating the divine Sacraments in the “offering” of bread. Irenzus, speaking® of the new oblation of the New Testament, adds, “which the Church offers to God throughout the world ;” and further says‘, “we offer to Him... as sanctifying the creatures.” St. Justin Martyr affirms®, that Christ hath by tradition instructed us to “ offer” bread, &c., and speaks of bread and wine as “ offered” by Gentiles converted to Chris- tianity, according to the prediction of Malachi.
The Constitutions are as forward evidence as the Fathers: for in telling us what is the business of the Lord’s day, they reckon‘ “the offering” of the Sacrifice, and distribution of the holy gift ; and’ the Bishops and Priests are ordered “to offer” the Sacrifice which the Lord commanded, saying, “Do this,’ &c. There is a complaint®, that Eucharists “have been offered” by such as ought not to have done it. And there is a charge giveni to “ offer” the antitype of the royal Body, as an acceptable Eucharist.
As to synods, that of Constantinople before cited, speaks* of them who “offered” the image of Christ; and a little after!
Bike pet 7. Ap: © « p. 4 Ap. 1.22. rm. p. 12—14. 4 f, p. 5, 6. Ap. 1. 32 1.6. € b. d. p. 3. Ap. Guat. Ὁ: f b. p. 47. Ap.
um. 9. & bb. p. 47. Ap.
x m. 11, 12. h ce. p. 47, Ap:
Yn. p. 15. Ap : d. p. 47. Ap. ap. 9..Ap p- 51. Ap. 1. 3, 4 * aa. 1 21y7oe
SECT. "
CHAP.
II
120 THE SACRAMENTAL BODY
it is said, Christ commanded His image to be “offered.” And further it makes mention™ of the Body that is consecrated by the Priest “who makes the oblation.” The third, alias sixth council of Carthage" orders, in the twenty-fourth canon, that nothing “be offered” in the Sacraments of Christ’s Body and Blood, but Bread and Wine. The council of Laodicea?®, canon nineteen, directs how and when the holy Sacrifice shall be celebrated, or consummated. The synod of Nice?, in the eighteenth canon, affirms that deacons have not power to “offer,” that is, to offer the Sacramental Body of Christ, which they are for that reason forbid to administer to the Priests, who “could offer 1. And the second and third apo- stolical canons? forbid the Priest to “offer” any thing but Bread and Wine, as the synod of Carthage before mentioned also did.
And now I must have leave to say, that I have good reason to question whether any particular doctrine of Christianity have a better foundation in the records of primitive Chris- tianity than the material Sacrifice of the Eucharist, and the solemn actual oblation of it in the Christian Church. And these authorities are the more considerable and weighty, be- cause there are not any abating or qualifying words. They all call the Eucharist a Sacrifice ; and intimate, if they do not expressly assert, it to be a material Sacrifice of Bread and Wine, or of the Body and Blood of Christ, or of the Sacrament; by which it wil. hereafter appear that their meaning was the same ; and they declare that this Sacrifice was truly offered, according to the rites of our most holy religion. But what have our adversaries to say in answer to all these authorities from the Fathers and canons of the first four centuries? Why truly, the sum and substance of what they have to offer is this, that St. Chrysostom, at the latter end of these four centuries, or the beginning of the fifth, in his comments on the Epistle to the Hebrews, has these words"; “ Do this, says Christ, in remembrance of Me, or, Offer this as My memorial. We do not offer another sacrifice, as the [Jewish] high- priest did, but always the same, or rather we perform a
51. 81, 59. θ᾽ γυδῦν Ἀγ: δ ΡΥ Δ 4 p. 48. Ap. ° p. 50. Ap. ΤΡ. ρα ϑ
AND BLOOD OFFERED. ea
memorial.” Now suppose St. Chrysostom did by these srcT. words intend to detract from the proper sacrificial nature of ἢ the Eucharist, yet we are to consider that four hundred years’ Queue" possession will be a better argument for the right the Eucha- ΕΝ rist has to this name, than the saying of one single Father 5116 to the
can be against it. And indeed the authority of one Father pea of the fourth century is of very little weight, when what he says is against the general stream of antiquity ; but in reality, what this Father says is what, I suppose, all the present assertors of the Sacrifice do willingly subscribe to, nay, it is this very opinion of St. Chrysostom which we contend for. We do not think we offer another Sacrifice, but only continue and perpetuate that which Christ offered; yet neither are we so stupid as to believe that the Sacrifice we offer is substan- tially the same with that offered by Him. We pretend not that His own natural Body is, or can be, sacrificed again, but only His Sacramental; and therefore we allow that it is commemorative: but we cannot see the consequence which our adversaries would draw from thence, viz. that it is not a real and proper Sacrifice. Prefigurative and commemorative Sacrifices do both agree in this, namely, that they are repre- sentations. Now we believe, with all sound divines, that all the sacrifices of the ancients, before and under the law, were prefigurative of that Sacrifice which Jesus Christ offered in His own person, and that they were therefore representative, as well as that of the Eucharist; nor can we discern why commemoration should extinguish the nature of a Sacrifice any more than prefiguration. I add, further, that St. Chry- sostom here calls the Eucharist, as our Saviour also does, ᾿Ανάμνησις, “the memorial;” now we know the critical mean- ing of this word, when applied to sacrificing, as it is here by St. Chrysostom, is that portion of the oblation which, being in a particular manner offered to God, did bring the whole oblation in remembrance before Him‘; and that, therefore, this Father’s meaning might probably be, that by offering the Eucharist we do the same thing in effect that Jewish priests did in offering their memorials; we apply the grand Sacrifice, and render it operative and effectual to the purposes for which it was intended ; and if these words, when spoken
S See Levit. ii. 2.9. 16; and Propitiatory Oblation, p. 18. 35.
CHAP. JBI
That the Fathers suppose that Christ offered Himself in the Eucha- rist, yet do not mention two obla- tions made by Him.
Gen. xiv.18.
122 OF THE PRIESTHOOD
by St. Chrysostom, do not at all impair the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist; much less can those of Eulogius, who wrote at the latter end of the sixth century, or of Theophylact in the eleventh century, (whose comments are little more than transcripts from St. Chrysostom’s,) do any prejudice to our cause.
However, from this passage it is evident that St. Chrysos- tom thought the frequent repetition of the Eucharist in the Christian Church, was at first sight a seeming cbjection against the one only oblation of Christ; but it is further to be considered, that the ancients believed that Jesus Christ offered Himself in the Eucharist, and it may at first sight seem strange, that neither St. Chrysostom, nor any other of the ancients, according to the best of my information, did ever make it an objection against Christ’s offermg Himself in the Eucharist, that according to this hypothesis, Christ was twice offered by Himself, first in the institution of the Sacrament, and then upon the cross. All that believe the Eucharist to be a Sacrifice must, of consequence, believe that Christ did in the institution in some sense offer His Body and Blood ; and if He did this again upon the cross, then it seems that He offered Himself twice, which looks like a mighty objection in the eyes of some modern writers; but it is such an objection as the ancients seem to have been wholly in- sensible of. I shall now make it my business to prove that the Fathers were fully aware that the Eucharist must have been offered by Christ, or else that it ought not to be offered by us; and by the account which they give of Christ’s offermg Himself in the institution of the Eucharist, it will plainly appear that this seeming objection was to them none at all, because they believed that in the Eucharist He executed His Melchisedecian priesthood, that there He began the one only oblation of His Body and Blood, which He finished on the cross. For it is to be observed‘, that the Fathers from St. Cyprian downward, are scarce more unani- mous in expounding any one text of Scripture, than that of “Melchisedec’s bringing forth bread and wine,” by which
‘ A notable adversary of the Sacrifice _ lation at the institution of the Eucharist, in the Eucharist reckons this discourse whereas I really begin my proofs above concerning Melchisedec my first argu- _ twenty pages below this. [Not in First ment or proof that Christ made the ob- Ed. |
OF MELCHISEDEC. 123
they understood that he offered up those creatures to God before he gave them to Abraham; and that by offering them up, or giving them to God the Father, he prefigured the evangelical oblation, and conferred the blessing on Abraham, which afterwards he explained in words. From this meaning of the text they naturally concluded that one great part of our Saviour’s Melchisedecian priesthood consisted in offer- ing Bread and Wine; and that in offering them He did mys- teriously, spiritually, and intentionally beforehand offer His own Body and Blood, and gave commandment to His Apo- stles and their successors for ever after to do the same.
I suppose there is no occasion for me particularly to prove that the Fathers believed that Melchisedec offered bread and wine, and that in so doing he was a type of Christ, by producing the several passages wherein they express these sentiments. Many citations from them have already been brought under the foregoing heads, which plainly speak their thoughts in this matter, and many more will hereafter occur, and a greater number might have been added, if it had been my design industriously to prove it; but my reader will think it more necessary and seasonable to say something in this place whereby to shew the grounds which the Fathers had for this opinion, than to labour in the proof of that, which is, I suppose, confessed by all that have in any mea- sure looked into their writings. Now to shew that the an- cients did not without reason suppose that Melchisedec offered bread and wine, let it be considered,
1. That Melchisedec was a priest, and superior to the patriarch Abraham, who was a priest also; and I suppose it needs no proof that he was a sacrificer, for this is imported in his being a priest; and we are expressly told by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, when he is speaking of this matter, that “every high-priest is ordained of God to offer gifts and sacrifices.” And it could not have been said that our Saviour was a Priest according to the order of Mel- chisedec, if the one had been a sacrificing priest, but not the other. As sure, therefore, as our Saviour offered Sacri- fice, so sure is it that Melchisedec did so too.
2. It is very unreasonable to suppose that when Melchise- dee had the very greatest occasion to execute all the most
SECT. I.
That Mel- chisedec offered bread and
chap. viii. 3.
CHAP. Il.
Gen. xv.
Gen. xxii.
Lev. ix. 22.
124 . OF THE PRIESTHOOD
principal parts of his priestly office, I mean upon his meeting ~ and solemnly blessing Abraham, he should omit sacrifice, — which was always thought, as the most essential, so the most honorary and eximious of the sacerdotal powers. And I sup- pose it will appear to any one that examines the matter tho- roughly, that the most solemn benedictions, such as this of — Melchisedec to Abraham, were not passed without previous sacrifices. After this, Abraham received from heaven two most gracious intimations of God’s favour to him, or Divine benedictions; the one, after offering the heifer, the he-goat, and the ram; and the other, after his offering the ram in the stead of Isaac. And we read that Aaron, upon making his first sacrifices in behalf of himself and the children of Israel, — “when he came down from offering, blessed the people.” He seems to have done this by the particular direction of Moses, who was now with him to instruct him in the whole series of his sacrificial office; and what he did now was un- doubtedly to be a pattern to him for the future; and what is more agreeable in the nature of things, than that the most solemn services and homages to God, such as sacrifice was always esteemed, should be an introduction to those assur- ances which God is pleased to give to men of His especial favour toward them? And it is probable that the ancients had much greater evidence of this truth, namely, that sacri- fice was a constant and necessary preparation for the receiving the Divine blessing, than we in these ages, so remote from the institution and the practice of the old method of offering sacri- fice and imparting benedictions, can in justice pretend to.
3. If Melchisedec did offer sacrifice upon this great occa- sion, when it can scarce be supposed that he should omit it, then we have no cause to look any further for the materials which he offered, than to the brief history of Melchisedee in the fourteenth chapter of Genesis, where “bread and wine” are expressly said to have “been brought forth” by him. And in- deed there was no occasion for Melchisedee to bring forth bread and wine for any other purpose than to make an obla- tion of thanksgiving for the victory, and im order to pro- nounce, or rather to administer the benediction to Abraham, with the proper preceding celebrity. Abraham and his reti- nue were sufficiently furnished with victuals in the booty
OF MELCHISEDEC.
which they had retaken from their enemies, as we are as- sured ver. 11, 16, and we are informed, ver. 24, that they had actually “eaten” of these provisions.
4. If 1 am thought by some men to be mistaken in my reasonings upon this subject, it is very much to my satisfac- tion that I have so many and so great men under the same condemnation with me; and perhaps I may meet with some readers, who might have liked my notions and arguments if they had been perfectly new and unheard of, but will be out of conceit with them, merely because the notions are stale with age, and the arguments not altogether new. However 1 am much more concerned to maintain the integrity of the Fathers, than the closeness of their arguings, or the niceness of their critique; and if they did err in this point, it is evi- dent that this error of theirs did not proceed from partiality to their own cause, or from an indulgence to their own fan- cies; for even Philo, the Alexandrian Jew, and who lived and died in infidelity, does expressly say of Melchisedec, “he sacrificed victims,” or “ offered triumphal sacrifices"? And since this latter could serve no cause by this opinion of his, I may infer thus much at least from his saying so, that an impartial inguirer may, by considering circumstances, fairly argue himself into this persuasion ; and I can safely say that this is my own case, and for that reason I am disposed to judge favourably of the ancients, as having, I believe, rea- soned themselves into this opinion by such arguments as are just before represented. And that it was upon these grounds that the ancients believed that Melchisedec sacrificed the bread and wine, I will mention three as great witnesses as the ancient Church since the apostolic age did ever produce. The first is Cyril of Alexandria; “ Melchisedec,” says he*, “receives the symbol of that priesthood which is above the law, in order to bless Abraham, when he exhibited to him bread and wine; for we are blessed no otherwise by Christ.” With whom accords Eusebius in these words’, “ Melchisedec
Ὁ Josephus indeed takes no notice of the offering up the bread; but he was junior to Philo. [““ὃν θεασάμενος 6 μέγας ἀρχιερεὺς τοῦ μεγίστου Θεοῦ ἐπανίοντα---τὰς χείρας avatelvas εἰς οὐρανὸν, εὐχαῖς αὐτὸν γεραίρει, καὶ τὰ ἐπινίκια ἔθυε, καὶ πάντας τοὺς συναραμέ-
νους τῷ ἀγῶνι λαμπρῶς εἷστία, γεγηθὼς καὶ συνηδόμενος ὡς ἐπ᾽ οἰκείῳ κατορθώ- part.’—Philo Judzus, De Abrahamo, vol. ii. p. 34. ed. Mangey. 1742. ]
* a. p. 43, Ap.
Yh. p. 16. Ap. Ἂς
SECT.
126 OF THE PRIESTHOOD
CHAP. never appears to have used corporeal sacrifices, but blessed M._ Abraham in, or by bread and wine.” Nor is St. Cyprian less express when he says’, “that therefore the blessing of Abra- ham by Melchisedec the priest might be rightly celebrated, the sacrifice of bread and wine goes before it.” They all sup- pose that Melchisedec acted as priest, in relation to his bring- ing forth or offering the bread and wine, and that this oblation was a preparative to the benediction. Nor is the reader to won- der, that there is no express mention of Melchisedec’s offer- ing the bread and wine in Gen. xiv.; for all that are in any measure versed in the style of the Old Testament cannot be ignorant, that it abounds with ellipses, and often omits not only single words, but whole sentences; and there was the less occasion for Moses here precisely to express the oblation made by Melchisedec, because it was the known universal practice of the ancients to introduce their solemn feasts with sacrifices, or first to offer to God what they afterwards in- tended to be eaten and drunk as a festival banquet; and this is especially true, as to such feasts, where a priest presided at the entertainment, as Melchisedec did here. The learned Cudworth hath at large proved “that it was the custom of the Jews and heathens to feast upon things sacrificed.” [And Philo, in the place just now cited, expressly says, Mel- chisedec feasted all that assisted in the fight. ]
St. Pau’s Βαΐ I must acknowledge that there is one objection which ailemee of deserves to be considered, and it is this, viz. that the Apostle τ Ὁ ot in drawing a minute parallel betwixt Christ and Melchise- sidered. προ, in the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews, takes no notice of the latter’s offering
bread and wine. ‘To this it may be answered, that,
1. This argument proves too much; for if the Apostle’s omission of Melchisedec’s offermg bread and wine be an argument, that he did not therefore offer them; it may as well from thence be proved, that his bringing forth bread and wine was not a type of the Eucharist at all, even though it be considered barely as a religious feast. Now I suppose no man, who believes Melchisedec to have been the most per- fect type of Christ Jesus, can doubt but that Melchisedec,
2 τῇ, 4. p. 13. Ap.
* See Cudworth’s Notion of the Lord’s Supper, p. 2, &c.
OF MELCHISEDEC. 127
in bringing forth the bread and wine, did typify the Christian srcrT. Eucharist, though he should allow that he had no other — design in view, but the entertainment of Abraham and his attendants. It is observable, that Clemens Alexandrinus, and Epiphanius, though they do no where, so far as I have observed, assert that Melchisedec offered these materials, yet do expressly assert that his bread and wine were types of the Christian mysteries: nay, this seeming argument proves too much upon another account, I mean, because it would prove that our Saviour never performed any act of the Mel- chisedecian priesthood; for if the Apostle’s silence concern- ing the oblation of bread and wine be of sufficient validity to prove that none was offered; then his omission of the par- ticular priestly action or actions, wherein Christ was pre- figured by Melchisedec, will as effectually prove that Christ did, im no action performed by Him, execute the function of a ) priest according to that order. The Apostle, in his parallel between Christ and Melchisedec, expressly mentions his not ‘coming to his priesthood by descent, his taking tithes of Heb. vii. 3. Abraham, the perpetuity of their priesthood. He mentions Magee). also his being king of righteousness, and king of peace, and 23, 24. his blessing Abraham, but even these last particulars he does Ais Ξ ΄. not, in express words, apply to our blessed Saviour; and I apprehend very few of our adversaries will be disposed to think that Melchisedec typified our Saviour in all those instances here alleged by the Apostle, particularly in receiving tithes ; and it must be owned, we have a very hard task if we argue with men, who will neither allow that all that is men- tioned by the Apostle could be a parallel, or that any thing that is not mentioned was so. They take to themselves the privilege of arguing from the Apostle’s silence, but will not permit others to argue from his words. If Christ then per- formed any function of the Melchisedecian priesthood here mentioned by the Apostle, it was either blessing the people, or receiving tithes, or both. St. Paul does not here say, that Christ did either the one or the other, and yet no man will from hence infer that Christ did neither of these; and on the other side very few will allow that Christ did both ; and there- fore we ought not to depend upon so weak and negative a proof as the Apostle’s silence, nor to infer that what the
OHAP. ΤΙ
198 OF THE PRIESTHOOD
Apostle mentions of Melchisedec, is to be the standard of the parallel; except we will receive the parallel in all the par- ticulars expressed by St. Paul, and not in some only. The Apostle does indeed directly apply Melchisedec’s coming to the priesthood without any descent, or entail, to Christ Jesus, and so he does the perpetuity of it; but these are not parts or actions of the priestly office, but only circumstantial qualities of the priesthood itself. The only action im which the generality among us will be willing to acknowledge that Melchisedec represented Christ, is that of his blessing Abra- ham; which yet, as has been observed, St. Paul does not by any direct words apply to Him; and, therefore, we ought not to lay any stress upon an argument drawn from St. Paul’s omission in one case, any more than in the other; so that the question truly stated is this, viz. why did the Apostle in this parallel omit Melchisedec’s bringing forth the prefiguration of the Christian Eucharist? And to this
2. St. Jerome answers’, “There was much to be said, and hard to be uttered; not that the Apostle could not have explained it, but because it was not seasonable at that time, for he was discoursing with the Hebrews, who were not yet confirmed in the faith, to whom he must have discovered the Sacraments,’ meaning undoubtedly the Eucharist. The Father supposes, that St. Paul did not think it proper to dis- course of the Sacrament familiarly to people who were not yet fully settled in Christianity, which he apprehended to be the case of many of those to whom this Epistle was to be com- municated. How far we may rely on this single judgment of St. Jerome, I presume not to determme; but I cannot but observe, that St. Paul does never in any of his Epistles, make any plain mention of the Sacrament, except in the first to the Corinthians ; and perhaps the reason why he did it not was, that his Epistles were to be read in the public assembly, where there might be many present that were not thought fit hearers of that mystery ; and if it be asked, why then did he speak of it so freely in the first Epistle to the Corm- thians? I can but guess at the occasion, and it might be this; that the innovators there had permitted all the loose retainers to the Christian Church to approach the Lord’s
δ. 8. Ap:
OF MELCHISEDEC. 129
Table, without being instructed in the nature of the Eucha- 5ΈΟΤ. rist. If this had not been the case, it is scarce accountable how some that received the Eucharist in that Church should “ποῦ discern the Lord’s Body,” or know what it was that they received ; and when by this means these loose retainers to the Church knew what that outward solemnity of the Eucha- rist was, St. Paul could no longer consider it as a secret ; and, therefore, instead of that silence, or those short hints concerning that ordinance, which are so remarkable in all his other writings, he here endeavours at large to rectify their notions and practice in this matter ; and if the weakness of understanding and judgment in relation to Christianity were any reason why St. Paul should forbear to speak of the Eucharist in words at length, then certainly the Hebrews, to whom he now wrote (at least a considerable part of them), were as indifferently qualified as any men to have a discovery of these mysteries communicated to them in public; for the Apostle in this very Epistle gives a sad account of their igno- chap. ν. 12, rance and dulness. It is true the Apostle complains of the = Corinthians too, for being “babes, and not yet able to bear 1 Cor. iii. strong meat ;” but, as has been intimated, it was not in the ἢ _Apostle’s power to conceal the outward part of the mystery
from them, who by the countenance of their new teachers
had been emboldened to break in upon the celebration of the Eucharist without being duly qualified; and therefore the
only way that he had left to him to prevent their con-
tempt and abuse of it, was to let them into the fuller know-
ledge of it: but it does not appear that he had any such
motive to do this to the Hebrews, or to any of the other
people to whom he wrote his Epistles. It may seem a
wonder to some, that St. Paul, after he had so severely animadyverted upon the defect of spiritual understanding in
the Hebrews, should yet speak to them so largely and parti-
cularly of the Melchisedecian priesthood, and other things
of like nature in the sequel of this Epistle; but they who
know that the allegorical way of interpreting Scripture did
now exceedingly prevail among the Jews, (as will appear
from the writings of Philo, who was contemporary with the Apostles,) will be satisfied that this method of discourse could
not be looked upon as strong meat by those, that had had
JOHNSON. K
CHEAP: Il.
Joh. ii. 19.
Num. xxi.9.
Joh. iii. 14,
180 OF THE PRIESTHOOD
their education in the synagogue. This was what they really sucked in with their mothers’ milk, and therefore in this St. Paul accommodates himself to their apprehensions and way of thinking; but if they had been told, that the bread and wine mentioned in the history of Melchisedec were a prefiguration of a new Sacrifice, to which all the bloody and © other oblations of the law were to give way, this had indeed been meat so strong, as that they were not able to bear or digest. Thus much I have said in vindication of this learned Father’s opinion, which I entirely submit to the judgment of my readers, for the question is too nice for me positively to determine.
3. I desire it may be considered, that when the types of the Old Testament are alleged in the New, the most principal and obvious correspondence of the one with the other is oftentimes omitted. I will instance in three, which seem to be some of the most remarkable types. 1. The first is the temple of Jerusalem, to which our Saviour expressly alludes, when He says, “ Destroy this temple, and I will raise it up in three days.” No one can doubt but our Saviour in these words affirms the temple to be a type of His Body, yet He omits to mention the main thing in which they agreed, that is, the inhabitation of the Deity, which was that which made our Saviour’s Body a temple. 2. The second most remark- able type in the history of the Old Testament, expressly alleged in the New, is the brazen serpent, “which Moses made and put upon a pole ;” this is likewise by our Saviour expressly applied to Himself, in these words, “as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up.” But our Saviour takes no notice of that which I suppose all will allow to be the most apt point of correspondence, viz. that as the sight of the brazen serpent was a cure to them that had been poisoned by the bite of the fiery serpents, so faith in Christ is a certain antidote against sin, and all the works of the old crooked serpent, which He came to destroy. 3. Again, St. Paul runs a parallel betwixt Sarah and Isaac, and the Christian Church and people, on one part; and Agar and Ishmael, and the Jewish synagogue ~ and people, on the other part; but he omits that which was as clear a coincidence as any that he mentions; I mean, that
OF MELCHISEDEC. 131
shmael was circumcised, and yet was cast out, and not per- SECT. itted to be co-heir with Isaac; and I think, with submis- Γ΄. ion, that no particular mentioned by the Apostle in this parallel was more to his present purpose, than this of Ishmael’s being circumcised ; for this whole Epistle is one ontinued argument against the Judaizers, who pressed cir- cumcision upon the Gentile converts, as a thing without which they could not be saved; and the main inference from his whole discourse is contained in these words: “In Christ ch, vi. 15. Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircum- cision, but the new creature ;” and the case of Ishmael, who was circumcised and yet disinherited, was a very irresistible demonstration of this truth, yet passed over in silence by St. Paul. And why may not Melchisedec’s bread and wine be a type of the Christian oblation, as well as God’s symbolical residence in the temple of Jerusalem was a type of the Deity’s more perfect residence in the Body of Christ Jesus; or as the cure of the sting of those venomous insects in the wilder- ness was of that infallible remedy (the death of Christ) against the wounds of Satan; or as the discarding of Ishmael was of the reprobation of the circumcised unbelieving Jews ; though neither the one nor the others are expressly men- tioned by our Saviour or St. Paul, when they are professedly treating on this subject? The truth is, there are some things so very plain and obvious, in all pertinent similitudes and parallels, that they who best know the art of speaking, think it a fault too much to dwell on particularities; and it is imputed as a vice to some writers, that they do too much squeeze their similitudes; and it ought not to be cen- sured as an omission in inspired orators or writers, any more than in others, that they often leave room to the thoughts and reflections of the hearers or readers, to improve what is said, and make proper applications of it, so that it be done with modesty, discretion, and a godly fear of “ wresting the Scriptures to our own damnation.” This is very evident in the three cases before mentioned; where the omitted correspondences are as plain, and as certain, and pertinent, as those that are expressed in the words of our Saviour and the Apostle; and I humbly conceive the same may be said of the bread and wine spoken of Gen. xiv. 18. There is K 2
CHAP. Il.
132 OF THE PRIESTHOOD
no Christian, who knows that our Saviour instituted a Sacra- | ment in those material symbols, and reads the history of Melchisedec, and knows him to be the type of the Messias, — but his own sense must presently suggest to him, that he was a type of Him in bringing forth the bread and wine, as well as in other particulars; nay, I believe I may say © without offence, that the bread and wine of Melchisedec — are a proof of his being a type of Christ, and perhaps for — that reason omitted by St. Paul; just as for the same reason the inhabitation of the Deity in the temple, and the curing the bite of the fiery serpents by the sight of the brazen, is a proof that those two are types of our blessed Saviour ; and as Ishmael’s being circumcised and yet turned out of doors, is an argument to prove, that he likewise was a type of the infidel part of the Jews. And therefore to retort this objection, I thnk we have reason to believe, that St. Paul might omit this particular at present, that if any one should afterwards call in question the justness of this parallel, he might have this matter of fact, as an argument in reserve to prove that the whole narrative is a prefiguration of the Messias. However the least that can be said is, that he must think the case so plain, and the correspondence so very visible, that even the most stupid of those to whom he wrote, if they knew any thing of the Sacrament, must discern the agreeableness without the help of a mysta- gogue; and therefore he rather labours to unfold the more secret and obscure resemblances between the _his- torical and archetypal Melchisedec, than to insist upon a coincidence so plain and obvious, that he who runs may read it.
I have said thus much in order to vindicate the ancients from that misapplication of Scripture, which too many of | this age are too rash in imputing to them on this occasion; and I must further observe to my unprejudiced reader, that the notion of the Sacrifice was certainly received in the Church, before the Fathers did ever, so far as appears by — their writings, apply the oblation of Melchisedec to that of Christ. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, do plainly © mention the Christian oblation, but take no notice, so far | as I could ever observe, that it was prefigured by that of |
OF MELCHISEDEC. 133
Melchisedec®. This is a demonstration, that the Fathers SECT. did not take the preposterous method, that innovators Ξ usually do; I mean first to lay down the conclusion, and
then hunt for arguments to support it. St. Cyprian, who
called Tertullian his master, is the first that I have observed,
who from these premisses did expressly infer, that Melchi- sedec’s oblation did prefigure that of Christ.
And here it may not be amiss to consider, on what account Melchise-~ the ancients, particularly Eusebius and Theodoret, denied seem that Melchisedec’s sacrifice of bread and wine were corporeal ©"?! and irrational ; and it is, I suppose, evident, that they thought them spiritual and rational; not only because they were significant, mysterious, aud predictive of the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, but because both Melchisedec and Abraham, by the eye of faith, did see and know them to be so: in a word, this sacrifice of Melchisedec was a spiritual, rational sacrifice, in the same sense that the Eucharist is so; viz. as St. Chry- sostom expresses it‘, because “ Our Lord has delivered nothing to us [in the Eucharist] to be perceived by the senses; but every thing to be apprehended by the understanding, in things perceptible by the senses,” viz. bread and wine.
And no wonder that they denied those to be corporeal sacrifices, when they believed, that the worth and value of them did not consist in the excellence of the visible materials, but in their inward, invisible, mysterious nature, which was to be discerned by the reason and spirit. We have no grounds to believe, that the generality of the Jewish priests or people did apprehend any thing in their animal sacrifices but what they saw. It is owned, that all sacri- fices, instituted by God, were prefigurations of the grand Sacrifice; but they were mere bodily things to them, who looked no further, than to what they saw on the altar; but we are assured that “Abraham rejoiced to see the day of Christ, and did see it,’ and that therefore the bread and wine was to him a rational, spiritual sacrifice; because he
¢ “Nay, Tertullian affirms both the the inference, viz. that in this he premisses, not only that the Eucharist typified the Messias.” First Ed. was a Sacrifice, but that Melchisedec 4 t. p. 40. Ap. 1. 6. did offer sacrifice*, without drawing
* Advers. Judzos, lib. i. cap. 2. tice legis sacerdotium Levite fuerunt, [Unde Melchisedeec sacerdos Dei qui sacrificia Deo offerabant ?” p. 184. Summi nuncupatus, si non ante Levi- Ed. Paris, 1664.]
CHAP. I.
Heb. vii. 7.
That our Saviour sacrificed in the Eucharist.
134 THAT CHRIST SACRIFICED
believed, and knew it to be presignificative of the great Sacrifice. And we have no reason to suppose, that Mel- chisedec was less apprehensive of the grand Mystery, than the patriarch Abraham ; for we are assured, that of the two Melchisedec was the better, or greater. Therefore Eusebius, having said® that Melchisedec “ offered no corporeal sacri- — fice, but bread and wine,” explains himself by adding, “that he foresaw the Mysteries by the Divine Spirit.”
But after all, we cite the Fathers only as witnesses; and do not depend so much upon the acuteness of their arguings, and the politeness or aptness of their phraseology or diction, as upon the unanimity of their testimony, and the certain fixed meaning or intendment of the words, which they used to denote a material sacrifice. Granting that they were mistaken, which yet does not appear, in believing that Mel- chisedee offered bread and wine; it does not therefore follow, that they were or could be mistaken, in saying that they themselves, or the Church in their time, did offer those elements. And when they say that Melchisedec, in offering bread and wine, was a type of Christ Jesus; though we do suppose, with many of the moderns, that they were too hasty in seemg a type where none was meant; yet thus much we may infallibly conclude, that they who said this must believe that our Saviour offered Bread and Wine. Nor will it follow, that because they were mistaken in their reasonings, or their forwardness in receiving the traditions of the Jews in relation to a fact that was done so many ages past, that they therefore were deceived in a matter so (com- paratively) late, as that of our Saviour’s institution of the Eucharist; or that they did not rightly understand those words which our Saviour used on that occasion, nor the practice of the Church, from the times of the Apostles down to the ages in which they lived and wrote. And what I am chiefly concerned to prove is, that they who believed that Melchisedec offered bread and wine, and that in so doing he was a type of Christ, must believe, that Christ also did offer those materials; nay, that they who believed that such an oblation was, and ought to be made in the Christian Church, must believe also, that Christ in the insti-
eh. p. 16.1. 4. and 9.
IN THE EUCHARIST. 135
tution did make this oblation. For it cannot im common SECT. sense and charity be believed, that they thought any thing Ξ was, or ought to be, done in the Eucharist by the Church,
but what our Saviour did, when He founded it; and indeed several of them do express their sentiments to this purpose ;
and therefore all the citations already produced on the fore-
going heads, do by necessary consequence prove, that our Saviour did offer Bread and Wine, in the judgment of > the ancients; except we will suppose that they thought the Eucharist of the Church different from that of our Lord.
But to put the point beyond dispute, I shall further lay before my reader the express affirmations of the ancients
to this purpose ; namely, that our Saviour did in the original Eucharist, offer His Body and Blood in the symbols of Bread
and Wine.
Theodoret speaks this plainly enough, where he says‘ “ He Proofs that (St. Paul) reminded them of that holy sacred night, in which pete ee Christ put an end to the typical passover, and exhibited the S@ctiice- archetype thereof, and opened the doors of the salutary mystery.” For the archetype of the passover is, in the Apostle’s language, “ Christ our passover sacrificed for us ;” and in saying, that He exhibited, or shewed the archetype of the passover, he does in effect assert, that Christ the true passover was then sacrificed by Himself; and when he affirms this to have been done in the night, when He put an end _ to the typical passover, he must mean the night before His
crucifixion, when He instituted the Eucharist; but he says
this more plainly yet in these words®, “Christ in that night,
after which He suffered, commenced His Priésthood, when
taking Bread He blessed it, and said, Take, eat,” &c.; and
presently speaks of Melchisedec’s being a type of our Saviour
in offermg bread and wine. “On the same table,” says
St. Chrysostom", “there are both passovers, that of the
type, and that of the verity: as painters on the same table
first draw the lines, and then cast the shade, and after that
add to it the just colours: so did Christ; He first repre-
sented the typical passover, and then added the true one.”
And I hope I need not again tell my reader, what the true
passover was. St. Austin speaks fully to my purpose in fe. p. 46. Ap. gd. p. 45. Ap. hk. p. 88, Ap.
CHAP. Il.
136 THAT CHRIST SACRIFICED
these words', “ Those [Jewish] sacrifices, as promissive words, are set aside; completive are given to us. What is the com- pletive word that is given us? A Body, which you [com- municants] know, which all of you [catechumens] do not know: I wish all you who know It, may not know It to your own destruction. For Christ is our Lord, Who speaks sometimes by His members, sometimes in His own person: ‘Sacrifice and oblation,’ says He, ‘ Thou wouldest ποί : what then, are we left now without sacrifice? God forbid. ‘A Body hast Thou prepared Me.’ Thou refusedst those [sacrifices | that Thou mightest prepare this. The performing of the promises cancelled the promissive words; for if they were yet promissive, then what was promised is not performed; this was promised by certain signs. Those promissive signs are cancelled, because the promissive Verity is exhibited. We are now in this Body, we are partakers of this Body; may you know It, who are now ignorant of It; and when you understand It, may you receive It, not to condemna- tion; for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh condemnation to himself. We have a Body prepared for us, let us be perfected in that Body.” It is evident to a demonstration, that by ‘Body’ is meant the Sacramental Body, in St. Austin’s judgment; and that therefore our Saviour fulfilled that prophecy, and offered this Sacrifice in the Eucharist. St. Jerome has been already cited for using those words of Jovinian with approbation, “Christ offered wine, not water, for a type of His Blood ;” and again’, “ When our Saviour had fulfilled the typical passover,—He takes bread, which strengthens man’s heart, and passes to the true Sacrament of the passover; that as Melchisedec, the priest of the most high God, to pre- figure Him, had offered bread and wine; so He also might represent the verity of His own Body and Blood.” But the words of St. Gregory Nyssen are most peculiarly re- markable to this purpose™, “ Christ, Whose ceconomy regu- lates all things, according to His sovereign authority, stays not until He was under a necessity by being betrayed, and until the Jews had seized Him by violence, or until Pilate
ir. p. 33. Ap. 1 gq. p. 29. Ap. Kc. p. 28. Ap. m Ὁ, p. 24. Ap.
| '
ἶ ] | |
IN THE EUCHARIST. 137
had unjustly condemned Him, and so their malice had proved the principal occasion and cause of the salvation of mankind ; but by His ceeconomy He prevents their seizure of Him; and by a method of Sacrifice, which was ineffable and invisible to men, He offered Himself an oblation and victim for us; being Himself at the same time both the Priest, and the Lamb of God, Which takes away the sins of the world. When was this? When He made His own Body eatable, and His Blood potable, to those who were with Him. For this is manifest to all, that the Lamb could not be eaten by men, if the slaughter had not made way for the mandu- cation of It. He therefore that gave His Body for food to His disciples, manifestly demonstrates, that a Sacrifice was absolutely made under the figure of the Lamb. For the Body of the Sacrifice had not been fit for manducation, if It had been alive; therefore when He gave His Body to His disciples to be eaten, His Body was already sacrificed in- effably and invisibly, according to the will and pleasure of Him, Who had the ceconomy of this mystery.” Eusebius speaks fully to our purpose in the following words", “ Our Saviour Jesus, the Christ of God, does even to this present time celebrate Sacrifice among men, by His ministers, after the manner of Melchisedec; for as he, being a Priest of the Gentiles, nowhere appears to have used corporeal sacrifices, but blessed Abraham in bread and wine; in the same manner, first our Saviour and Lord, and afterwards all Priests from Him, celebrating the spiritual Sacrifice in Bread and Wine, do represent His Body and Blood in a mystery.” And again®, “ We with good reason daily cele- brating the memorial of His Body and Blood, and being dignified with a better Sacrifice and Hierurgy than the ancients, judge it not safe to fall back to the weak elements, which contain symbols and images, not the truth itself; for saith He—‘ Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not, but a Body hast Thou prepared Me’—and after all, He auspiciously offered to God the miraculous Sacrifice, the eminent victim, having delivered to us the memorial, instead of, or as a sacri- fice.’ Dr. Hakewell?, and others since him, have laboured
ΒΡ. 16. Ap. Heylyn, touching the Pretended Sacri- δ» 16. Ap. fice in the Eucharist.’’ Cap. iv. Pamph. P [See his “ Dissertation with Dr. 41. 1641. Bodl.]
SECT. I.
138 THAT CHRIST SACRIFICED
CHAP. hard to wrest the last words of this citation from the ᾿
assertors of the Eucharistic Sacrifice; and if they could — have done this, yet it seems to me, that the most full evidence is left unanswered. For I apprehend, that by the © “better Hierurgy and Sacrifice,” opposed to those sacrifices of the Levitical law, he certainly means the Eucharist. For we have, and shall see, that the Fathers often call the Sacrifice ~ of the sacramental Body and Blood ‘the verity,’ in comparison to the types and shadows of the Levitical law ; and it is very evident, that by the ‘Body prepared,’ Eusebius means the Eucharistical Body; as he does again in another places, where he says, “For since He no longer desired bloody sacrifices, nor such as were appointed by Moses, by the slaughter of divers animals, He instructed us to use bread, as a symbol of His Body; therefore He hath aptly repre- sented the whiteness and purity of this food, saying, ‘ His teeth are white as milk:’ and of this also another prophet hath reminded us, saying, ‘Sacrifice and offerimg Thou wouldest not, but a Body hast Thou prepared Me.”” In which place, as the learned reader may see, he is expressly speaking of the Eucharist. And it is plain enough, that by ‘the better victim,’ and by ‘the prepared Body,’ he means something distinct from the ‘miraculous Sacrifice, the eminent victim,’ viz. Christ’s natural Body. For when he had mentioned the two former, he adds, ‘after all He offered,’ &c. which implies, that the personal Flesh and | Blood of Christ were not yielded to God, until He had | first dignified us with a better Sacrifice than those of the law, and fulfilled that prophecy, viz. ‘a Body hast Thou prepared Me; which He must therefore be supposed to have done in the Eucharist, according to what St. Austin has said in the place just before recited; therefore it is very evident, that Eusebius did not at all apprehend, that he lessened the Sacrifice, when he called it a memory, or © memorial. For it is clear, that he supposed, that Christ did the ‘will of God,’ and offered the ‘ prepared Body’ in the Eucharist, and that therefore by this memorial the whole Sacrifice was to be brought in remembrance before God. — The excellent Dr. Hickes has shewed, that ἀντὶ θυσίας may ; a Opel Cero ps
IN THE EUCHARIST. 139
signify either, ‘instead of the great Sacrifice,’ meaning that of the Cross, as we commonly speak, or that the Eucharist is ‘for a Sacrifice,’ as the “ woman’s hair is for a covering’.” Athanasius teaches the same doctrine with little variations, “It is the Body [of Christ] to which [God the Father] says, *Sit Thou on My right hand; and to which the devil and his wicked powers, and the Jews and Gentiles, were enemies ; by which Body He became the High-Priest and Apostle in the mystery which He delivered to us, saying, ‘This is My Body,’” &c. He clearly asserts, that Christ was exercising the office of High-Priest, while He instituted the Eucharist ; and that therefore therein He offered an oblation; and he tells us, what it was He offered, viz. His Body; he passes from Christ’s natural Body to His sacramental Body, with- out making any express difference; which yet he does plainly enough in other places of His writings. What he would hereby teach us is, that Christ, in offering His sacramental Body, did virtually and intentionally consign His natural Body to the Altar of the Cross; which is what the other Fathers do likewise mean beyond all doubt. When he says, that “Christ by This Body became a High-Priest and Apostle in the mystery which He delivered,” he alludes to the words of St. Paul, who calls Christ Jesus the High-Priest of our pro- -fession, Heb. iii. 1; but I cannot but observe, that the word turned by us ‘ profession,’ I mean ὁμολογία, 15 used five times by the LXX for ‘a free-will offering.’ [ First, Lev. xxii. 18, 19, in the Greek stands {ππ|5-- ἄνθρωπος, ἄνθρωπος, ἀπὸ τῶν υἱῶν ᾿Ισραὴλ, ἢ ἀπὸ τῶν προσηλύτων, τῶν προσκειμένων πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἐν ᾿Ισραὴλ, ὃς ἂν προσενέγκῃ τὰ δῶρα αὐτοῦ κατὰ πᾶσαν ὁμολογίαν αὐτῶν, ἢ κατὰ πᾶσαν αἵρεσιν αὐτῶν, ὅσα
ἂν προσενέγκωσιν τῷ Κυρίῳ
r [We must observe of the prepo- sition Αντι, that it signifies first pro, FOR, as pro denotes loco, vice, instead, of which I need give no examples; secondly, it signifies propter, and gratia, as gratia is used in the ablative case ; of which, not to bring proofs out of lexicographers, we have one in Heb. xii. 16; Ὃς ἀντὶ βρώσεως μιᾶς ἀπέ- δοτο, &c. Qui propter unam escam yendidit suum jus primogeniti, Who for one morsel of meat sold his birthright. So also it signifies Matt. xx. 28, and Mark x. 45 ; ᾿Αντὶ πολλῶν, pro multis,
εἰς ὁλοκαυτώματα (19.) δεκτὰ
The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His Soul a Ransom for many. And thirdly, with little difference from this second signification, it denotes the end, and signifies pro, for, in that sense which the Latins also express by wt, or eo ut, as in 1 Cor. xi. 15; “Or: ἡ κόὀμὴ ἀντὶ περιβολαίου δίδοται αὐτῇ, quoniam ca- pilli pro velamine ei dati sunt, for her hair is given her for a covering or veil.” Christian Priesthood, vol. ii. Account of the Third Edition, p. xiv. ] * d. p. 17. Ap.
SECT. I.
CHAP. I.
140 THAT CHRIST SACRIFICED
ὑμῖν, x. τ. λ. Whosoever he be of the sons of Israel, or of the proselytes who cleave to them, who offers his gifts after the manner of every vow, and after the manner of every free-will offering of theirs, whatever they offer for a burnt- offering, (19.) Let it be acceptable or well-pleasing to your- selves, &c.” Here the material thing ‘vowed’ is by the LXX turned ὁμολογία.
[Secondly, you have this word in the same sense, Jer. xliy. 25.—ipeis, γυναῖκες, TO στόματι ὑμῶν ἐλαλήσατε, Kal ταῖς χερσὶν ἐπληρώσατε λέγουσαι, ποιοῦσαι ποιήσομεν τὰς Opodo- γίας ἡμῶν ὡς ὡμολογήσαμεν, θυμιᾶν τῇ βασιλίσσῃ τοῦ οὐρα- νοῦ καὶ σπένδειν αὐτῇ σπονδάς" ἐμμείνασαι ἀνεμείνατε ταῖς ὁμολογίαις ὑμῶν, καὶ ποιοῦσαι ἐποιήσατε. “ Ye, women, have spoken with your mouth, and fulfilled it with your hands, saying, We will surely do, or offer our vows which we have vowed, to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to make libations to her: ye have obstinately persisted in your vows, and done or offered them.” Here the ‘vows,’ which they made with their mouths and offered with ‘their hands,’ were incense and liquid hbations ; yet they are twice styled homo- logies by the LXX. The Hebrew ‘neder’ is used in the original of both these texts ; and the verb ‘ nadar’ is rendered by ὁμολογεῖν, which therefore imports the dedicating of some material thing to the queen of heaven; for the difference between the vow and the free-will offerimg was very small, and consisted in this‘, that if the animal, or other thing which was vowed, were lost, or died of itself, another must be offered in its stead, which was not necessary in case of a free-will offering ; therefore by a ‘vow,’ they understood a thing actually dedicated to some deity ; and the vowing of it was a dedication, as I have shewed, ch. ii. sect. 4.
[In the three following texts, the Hebrew ‘nedaba’ is turned by ὁμολογία.
(Thirdly, the third text which I shall produce, whereby to prove, that this Greek word has the signification which I have assigned to it, is Deut. xii. 17. Οὐ δυνήσῃ φαγεῖν ἐν Tals πολεσίν σου TO ἐπιδέκατον τοῦ σίτου σου, Kal τοῦ οἴνου σου, καὶ τοῦ ἐλαίου σου, τὰ πρωτότοκα τῶν βοῶν σου, καὶ τῶν προβάτων σου, καὶ πάσας τὰς εὐχὰς, ὅσας ἂν εὔξασθε, καὶ τὰς
t See Ainsw. on Levit. vii. 16.
IN THE EUCHARIST. 141
ὁμολογίας ὑμῶν, Kal Tas ἀπαρχὰς τῶν χειρῶν ὑμων' that is, “Thou mayest not eat within thy cities the tythe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of thine oil, the firstlings of thy bullocks, or of thy sheep, nor any of thy vows, which thou hast vowed, nor your free-will offerings, nor the first-fruits of your hands.” Here are clearly such ‘homologies’ as may be eaten ; and therefore, in this respect, of the same sort with the Christian Eucharist.
[Fourthly, the next is, Ezek. xlvi. 12. ᾿Εὰν δὲ ποιήσῃ 6 ἀφηγούμενος ὁμολογίαν ὁλοκαύτωμα σωτηρίου τῷ Κυρίῳ, κ-τ.λ. “Tf a prince make, or offer a free-will offering, [which is] a whole burnt sacrifice of a peace offermg to the Lord,” &c. N.B. The LXX did not read the conjunction 4x, and there- fore took ‘nedaba’ as put in apposition with ‘ gnola;’ and so by an ‘homology,’ they understood a whole burnt sacri- fice.
[Fifthly, the last place where I find ὁμολογία used by the LXX, is Amos iv. 5, καὶ ἀνέγνωσαν ἔξω νόμον, καὶ ἐπεκαλέ- σαντο ὁμολογίας. “They read a foreign law, and called [them] free-will offerings,” by ‘them’ meaning the ‘ sacrifices’ and ‘tythes’ offered to idols in the former verse. The reader may see in the larger critics, how the LXX read the Hebrew of this place. In all five places, the Hebrew as well as Greek intends a material oblation. Of the word ‘homology,’ see more toward the end of this section*.] And therefore I think, in reason it ought to be so rendered in this text of St. Paul; and I cannot but observe, that St. Clement of Rome*, who is observed by learned men to transcribe several passages from the epistle to the Hebrews, has τῶν προσφορῶν instead of ὁμολογίας. I shall hereafter have occasion to make use of this reflection. In the mean time let us pro- ceed to the most illustrious attestation, which St. Cyprian gives to this doctrine of Christ’s offering Himself in the Eucharist, taken from his epistle against the Aquarians, who offered only fair water in the chalice’; 1. “Some either through ignorance or simplicity, in consecrating the Lord’s Blood, and administering It to the people, do not that which our Lord Jesus Christ, the author and teacher of this Sacri-
" Not in First Ed. Υ m. p. 12—14. Ap. * In Epistol. ad Corinth. prima, c. 36.
SECT. E
142 THAT CHRIST SACRIFICED
CHAP. fice did, and taught. 2. Now we are given to understand, hee offering the Cup, the tradition of the Lord should be observed ; and that no other thing be done by us, than what our Lord first did for us; that the Cup, which is offered in commemoration of Him, be offered mixed with Wine. 4. Who is more a Priest of God, than our Lord Jesus Christ, Who offered a Sacrifice to God and offered the same that | Melchisedec had offered, that is, Bread and Wine, His own ~ Body and Blood? ‘That therefore the blessmg of Abraham in Genesis might be rightly celebrated, an image of the Sacrifice of Christ in Bread and Wine goes before it; which thing our Lord perfecting and completing, offered Bread, and the Cup mixed with Wine; and He that is fulness, per- fected the verity of the image, which was formed long before. 5. But the Holy Ghost also by Solomon, making mention of the Lord’s Sacrifice, the immolated Sacrifice of Bread and Wine, as also of the Altar, and of the Apostles, (he cites Proy.ix. 1—5,) speaks with a prophetic voice of mingled Wine, that is, the Cup of our Lord mixed of wine and water ; that it might appear, that nothing was done in the passion of our Lord, but what had been before predicted.” 6. He cites the words of institution, and adds, “ From whence it appears, that the Blood of our Lord is not offered, if Wine be not in the Cup; and that our Lord’s Sacrifice is not celebrated with a due consecration, unless our Sacrifice and oblation answer the Passion. 9. If in the Sacrifice that Christ offered, none but Christ is to be followed, then we are to obey, and to do what Christ did,—for if Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, be the High-Priest of God the Father, and first offered up Himself a Sacrifice to the Father, and commanded this to be done in commemoration of Him; then that priest truly acts as in his Master’s stead, who imitates what Christ did; and then offers a true and full Sacrifice in the Church of God, if he begin so to offer, as he sees Christ to have offered before him. 11. But Christ offered not in the morning, but after supper: should we therefore offer the Lord’s Sacrifice after supper, that so, in repeating the Lord’s Sacrifice, we may offer a mixed Cup?” (the meaning is, as I apprehend, that they who fasted, thought that drinking wine in the Eucharist would break their fast, and so delayed the offering
IN THE EUCHARIST. 143
and receiving the Eucharist, until they had fasted the whole day,) “‘ but we celebrate the resurrection of the Lord in the morning ; and because in all our Sacrifices we make a com- memoration of His Passion, (for the Passion of our Lord is the Sacrifice which we offer,) we ought to do nothing but what He did. As often therefore as we offer the Cup in com- memoration of our Lord, let us do what we are sure He did. We are unpardonable, who have now been admonished and instructed by the Lord, to offer the Lord’s Cup mixed with Wine, according as our Lord offered it, viz., unless we comply. It is therefore agreeable to conscience and [godly] fear, and the place and office of our Priesthood, in mingling and offering the Lord’s Cup, to observe the tradition of our Lord.” Thus does this holy Father ingeminate his opinion, or rather speak the familiar language of Christians in that age, concerning Christ’s offering His Body and Blood under the symbols of Bread and Wine. And it is observable, that he lays so great a stress on the oblation there made, that he gives the name of ‘the Passion’ to the Eucharist ; I mean, he principally intends the Eucharist by this title, though not so as to exclude the personal or bloody oblation on the cross ; for having mentioned the prefiguration of the Eucharist by Melchisedec and Solomon, he presently adds, “ That nothing was done in the Passion of our Lord, but what had been predicted.” Now the predictions mentioned by him relate directly to the Eucharist only, and to our Saviour’s Body being crucified, and the Blood and Water that flowed out of His side, more remotely, and without any express mention of them. He does in another place of this epistle expressly hint, that he takes our Saviour’s sufferings on the cross, in conjunction with His mysterious oblation of Himself in the Eucharist, into the full import and meaning of this word; for speaking’ of some confessors, who were afraid of taking the Eucharist in Bread and Wine, lest their gaolers should by the smell of their breath discover what they had drunk ; he says’, “Our brethren begin to hang back from the Pas- sion of Christ in the persecutions, since they learn to be ashamed of His Cross and Blood in the Sacrifices.” To ‘hang back from the Passion,’ is undoubtedly to be indis-
τ 70.10. 4m. 10,
SECT. IL
CHAP. Il.
144. THAT CHRIST SACRIFICED
posed to the receiving the Eucharist ; and this, in St.Cyprian’s sense, implied the being ashamed of Christ’s Blood and Cross. And when he says, ‘that our Sacrifice and oblation must answer the Passion,’ what he first and chiefly means is, that the Eucharist, celebrated in the Church, must be done with the same materials which Christ used in the first _ Eucharist, which first Eucharist he therefore denotes by the word ‘ Passion.’ And to demonstrate that this is his mean- ing, the reader will observe that he had just before rehearsed the words of institution, and that he draws this conclusion from those words. I question not, but the holy martyr had also a tacit regard to the Water and Blood which flowed from our Saviour’s side, in this passage as well as the former ; but the words must primarily be meant of the holy Sacra- ment. And thus Gaudentius uses the word, when he calls the Eucharist, ‘The propriety of our Lord’s Passion?” And so I understand St. Austin, when he says’, “ We must com- municate in the Passion of our Lord.” By this the reader may see how strongly our adversaries argue, when they cite the words of St. Cyprian out of this very epistle just now cited by me, viz., “the Passion of our Lord is the Sacrifice which we offer : and from thence conclude that it is our inward remembrance or calling to mind our Lord’s sufferings, which is the Sacrifice intended by St. Cyprian; whereas it is evident beyond all reasonable doubt, that by the Passion here he means the material Eucharist, the Bread and Wine mixed with Water, though with a special regard to the per- sonal sufferings of Christ, as has been before hinted. And therefore in St. Cyprian’s judgment, ‘the Passion of which we make a commemoration,’ is directly, and in the first place, the original Eucharist, celebrated personally by our Saviour, and ultimately the bloody Passion upon the Cross; as the reader may satisfy himself, by comparing together the several parts of the epistle relating to this purpose.
The sum of what these Fathers teach us is, that Christ entered upon His priestly office in the Eucharist ; that there He began the one oblation; there He offered Himself in a spiritual mystical manner, as He afterwards did corporally upon the Cross. He had, from before the beginning of the
Ὁ a. p. 30. Ap. © e. p. 81. Ap.
IN THE EUCHARIST. 145
world, decreed and resolved to die for the salvation of man- kind; in the Eucharist, He actually yielded and consigned Himself up to these sufferings; whereupon the powers of hell were presently let loose upon Him, and raised that per- turbation and agony in His mind, with which He was exer- cised in the garden; and before that was well over, He per- mitted Himself to be seized by the soldiers, and carried to His trial: all this was the consequence of His offering Him- self up to do and suffer the will of God; as was also all that followed upon it, until having breathed out His soul upon the cross, He said, “It is finished.” Upon the cross, beyond all dispute, the ransom was paid, the satisfaction made; His natural Body and Blood were the price, which He had agreed to deposit for the salvation of men. But these Fathers give their judgment, that in the institution of the Eucharist this Sacrifice was first made, in our Saviour’s will and intention; that then He made the tender of His Body aud Blood, after which the actual payment presently fol- lowed. It would be too nice, and altogether a needless dis- quisition to dispute, whether the voluntary resignation of Himself to His Father, by His own free act and deed, before He was under any appearance of necessity and compulsion, ere He was yet under custody and confinement, (as Gregory Nyssen® admirably well observes,) or His actual crucifixion, which was consequent upon this resignation, were in them- selves most meritorious. These two parts of the oblation were but one continued solemnity; nay, we may add, that the ascension of Christ into heaven many days after, was but the finishing of this one oblation. The distinguishing the oblation in the Eucharist from that on the cross, and that afterwards performed in heaven, is really a confounding or obscuring the whole mystery, and rendering it perplexed and intricate. We ought no more to reckon them two or three several oblations, than we would say an animal was three several sacrifices, because it was first immolated, then slain, afterwards burnt, and the blood of it ritually sprinkled. Any one of these actions may be called an oblation ; and the animal, by having any one of these actions passed upon it,
4 [6 γὰρπάντα κατὰ τὴν δεσποτικὴν €k τῆς προδοσίας avdyKnv.’’—Tom. ii’.
αὐθεντίαν οἰκονομῶν, οὐκ ἀναμένει τὴν p. 359. Ed. Paris. 1638. } JOUASSUN. L
SECT. I.
CHAP. Il.
146 THAT CHRIST SACRIFICED
was rightly called a sacrifice ; and yet the whole process was really but one and the same sacrifice.
The synod of Constantinople, before cited, seems to mag- nify our Saviour’s oblation in the Eucharist, on the same score, that Gregory Nyssen had done so before, in the fol- lowing words®, “The Sacrificer Himself, our God, having wholly assumed our doughy nature at the time of His voluntary Passion, delivered the Sacrifice for a type and effectual memorial to His disciples.” By the ‘effectual memorial’ meaning most probably such an one as that in the Levitical law, which was the very life and essence of the Sacrifice itself. And I apprehend that we are taught the same doctrine in the Constitutions, in those excellent words’, “Christ, the first and only-begotten High-Priest by nature, that did not assume this honour to Himself, but being con- stituted by His Father, becoming man for us, and offering a spiritual Sacrifice to His God and Father, before His Passion, commanded us [the Apostles] only to offer the same.” I shall leave it to my reader to determine what that Sacrifice was, which the Apostles only were to offer; for I conceive that none but Dr. Hancock or Dr. Wise will believe, that none but the Apostles only were to offer prayer and praise ;
nor can they themselves believe it, though they should be —
forced to say it. And we have already heard the twenty- fourth canon of the third, alias the sixth council of Carthage, and the second and third of the Apostolical canons, enjoining Priests and Bishops to offer nothing but what the Lord commanded, viz., Bread and Wine; and it is certain, that Christ commanded nothing to be done in the Eucharist, but what Himself had done before. And this consideration last mentioned will, by necessary consequence, prove Justin Mar- tyr and Irenzeus to have been of the same judgment; for the one asserts, that Christ, when He said, “ This is My Body,” taught the new oblation of the New Testament; and the other, that Christ hath by tradition instructed us to offer Bread and Wine, for a memorial of His Passion; and it is certain, Christ taught us to do nothing but what He had done before in His own person®.
‘ Ρ. 51. Ap. 1. 4. s ‘“ But there is another authority, f. p. 47. Ap. not much inferior in time to these now
IN THE EUCHARIST. 147
There are two Latin Fathers who give their verdict to the ame effect, though not in such strong words, I mean, St. Hi- ary of Poictiers, and St. Ambrose of Milan; the first asks}, “How our Saviour could pray that the cup might pass from Tim? Was it,” says he, “possible that Christ should not uffer? Nay, but even from the foundation of the world this ystery had been published; nay, He had but just before onsecrated the Blood of His own Body, to be poured out or the remission of sins.” ‘The other says’, “'The passover is the Passion of our Lord, as the blessed Apostle says, ‘Christ ur Passover is sacrificed for us:’ therefore Christ assuming a human body, consecrated Himself to the Passion in the ystery of the passover ;” the least that either of them can justly be deemed to say is, that Christ in the last Paschal olemnity, offered, devoted, and freely resigned Himself to uffer death for our sins.
Now I must have leave to say, that I have reason to be- ieve, few truths of Christianity can more plainly or more opiously be proved from the Fathers, than those heads re- lating to the Christian Eucharist, which I have hitherto been onfirming from their writings. We have sufficient proof f a material Sacrifice, from the canons of the most ancient synods; which yet had rarely any occasion to mention the ucharist, except it were to regulate some innovations in the dministration of It, or to deprive men of It for a time by ay of censure; for canons are made in relation to the dis- pline of the Church and the external ceconomy of it, rather han in regard to the doctrine or dogmata of religion. If ny men of new light had started up in the first ages of hristianity, and asserted that the Eucharist was not a Sacri-
ce, but a feast upon a Sacrifice ; or broached any fantastical
mentioned, which, I conceive, my reader will look upon as saying too much, rather than too little; it is that of Clemens Alexandrinus*, ‘ Christ deing about to shed His Blood, or to be sacrificed, and giving Himself a ransom, left us the Blood of the New Testament.’ For I suppose ‘ His being ibout to be sacrificed,’and ‘ giving Him- self a ransom,’ must refer to the same point of time; and that they both refer
= ΡΣ:
L
to the Eucharist, where He left us the Blood of the New Testament; or in other words, He gave Himself a ransom, and left us the Blood of the New Tes- tament, while He was yet about to be sacrificed, or to shed His Blood; and therefore at, or just after, His last supper.” [First Ed.]
hb. p. 20. Ap.
i f, p. 26. Ap.
7. Ap.
ἴω]
SECT. I.
CHAP. I.
Heretics owned a Sacrifice and Altar.
148 THAT CHRIST SACRIFICED
opinion, subversive of the Eucharistical oblation ; I question not, but we had had councils assembled to silence and sup- press them: but it is evident, that the heretics, that retained the use and practice of the Eucharist in those ages, retained It as a Sacrifice; and therefore the current phrase, whereby heresy and schism were denoted in the primitive times, were, erecting altar against altar, or new altars, or making sacri fices apart, or out of the Church ; for no clan of men in those | times thought that they could have the appearance or shadow © of a Church, without an altar and a sacrifice: and even the heathen, who had pried into the Christian mysteries, aped their oblation of the sacramental Bread. And as to the earliest Liturgies now extant, I apprehend that they clear! set this doctrine above dispute, in the opinion of all, that. are not immoderately prejudiced. a
But I expect to be told, that the authority of Fathers and councils, and of all the diffusive bodies of Christians, expressed in their Liturgies, put together, is not sufficient to establish a doctrine of so great consequence; except I can prove by the words of institution, or some incontestable evidence from — the Scriptures, that the offering of the sacramental Body and Blood is essential to the Eucharist. To which I answer,
1. It is certain, that the great men, whose names and — words I have used in the foregoing pages, did believe, that this Sacrifice was enjoined by Christ Himself; and though I do not owe an implicit faith to them, yet when so many venerable sages, to whom next after the Apostles Chris tianity chiefly owes its growth and settlement, do so fre- quently and positively affirm a thing of this nature; I thin myself in common equity and prudence obliged seriously te examine, and impartially to consider, whether these things are so. Further I am persuaded, that some of these Fathers were more capable of giving us true light in this particular, than all the most learned professors of languages and other sciences, now in Christendom: for they had not only the ) Scriptures, which we, God be praised, enjoy in common with them ; but they had, some of them at least, the knowledge of the use and practice, if not of the Apostles, yet of those who had personally conversed with them, and been witnesses
IN THE EUCHARIST. 149
the holy Sacrament. I will mention no more of those before cited, than Irenzeus and Justin Martyr; and I cannot but think their evidence most unanswerably clear and unexcep- ‘tionable. The first of them was the disciple of Polycarp, who jwas consecrated Bishop of Smyrna by St. John; and he /says positively, that Christ instituted a new oblation, in and by the words of institution; and that the Church received ‘the new oblation of the New Testament from the Apostles. ‘The other calls himself a disciple of the Apostles, and as- ‘sures us over and again, that Christ instructed us to offer ‘Bread and Wine in the Eucharist; and if these great men ‘were inferior to the literati of this age in critique and phi- ilosophy, yet they were much beyond them in those qualifica- jtions, which are proper to make men able interpreters of the New Testament; I mean, in the knowledge of those instruc- tions, which the Apostles delivered to the Bishops and Priests, which they constituted in the Church, and the manner and ‘method of celebrating the Eucharist and other religious offices; in which particulars it must be acknowledged, we most of all want information from the writers of the New Testament; and we shall make our wants the greater, if we refuse to receive that additional light, which they, who come so near to them in time, hold out to us. We have justly re- pudiated the oral traditions of the Church of Rome; but, I suppose, we live in an age, when men are able to distinguish between such traditions as are written (though not by in- spired writers), and suchas are unwritten, and therefore more liable to be mistaken, or misreported. I have said thus much, not that I think the Christian Sacrifice wants sufficient proof from Scripture to determine any impartial inquirer; but it fares with us in this respect, as it does with the assertors of the doctrine of the Trinity, of the baptism of infants, of episcopacy, and liturgies. Our proofs from Scripture, though we believe them to be just and full, and know, that they are such as our adversaries cannot answer; yet when we are told, that they are not satisfactory, and the question is simply this, whether they, or we, understand the Scripture right; we take the same course, that our ad- versaries of our own communion do in the cases before men- tioned; we appeal to the ancient monuments of the Church,
SECT. i
150 THAT CHRIST SACRIFICED CHAP. to those very writers, whom our adversaries themselves, who
. ΜΠ are in communion of the Church of England, think the most fair arbitrators in those controversies before mentioned ; and if they do not speak as directly and expressly for the doctrme of the Sacrifice, as for any other point, for the decision of which we commonly appeal to them; if their testimonies for — the Eucharistic oblation be not as many and as strong, as for any other principle or practice, which is now disputed among us; we are ready to submit, to confess ourselves in the wrong, and to yield ourselves up to all that shame and contempt which our adversaries are able to pour upon us, and which is in justice due to any men, and especially to divines, when they turn barrators: but if our authorities from the primitive Church are very numerous and very cogent; then we apprehend, that unless they can wholly confute our arguments from the Scriptures, our abundant demonstration of this doctrine from the earliest records of the Christian Church, and from such of them as are in age and authority next to the Holy Scriptures, will cast the scale on our side, in the opinion of all competent judges.
Evidence And the mention of these very early monuments of anti-
ate quity will naturally remind my reader, of St. Ignatius and
and Cle- St. Clement of Rome ; for as to St. Barnabas and Hermas, they do never, to the best of my observation, expressly mention the celebration of the Eucharist ; and therefore their silence eon- cerning the oblation is no more an objection against the Sacrifice, than against the Sacrament itself. It is true, the former does mention an oblation to be made by Christians ; and what that oblation is, we shall hereafter have occasion to consider. And he mentions an Altar*, to which Christians are to approach, and which our adversaries will never be able to prove to be any other than that on which the Eucharist was offered. Nor can I on the other side affirm, that what he says is any full evidence for the visible external Sacrifice ; but I cannot but think, that Ignatius is entirely ours. He mentions the Altar four times, as we shall hereafter more particularly observe; and that he meant a material Altar is as evident, as that he speaks of a human Bishop ; for he joins
* [Sicut ergo locutus est, honestius et altius accedere ad aram Illius.”"—
Cap. i.]
IN THE EUCHARIST. 151
both together in declaring! for “one Altar, and one Bishop ;” and in admonishing the Magnesians™ to run together “as to one house or temple of God, and to one Altar:” and he sufficiently intimates what use they then had for an Altar in the Christian Church, when he charges the Philadelphians? to “use but one Eucharist, because there is but one Flesh of Jesus Christ, and one Cup in the unity of His Blood, and one Altar,” &c. And he does the same again at another place, where he says°, that “he who is not within the Altar is deprived of the Bread of God,” for no impartial man can doubt, but that by ‘the Bread of God’ he meant the Bread of the Eucharist : that the Bread of God does perpetually in Scripture denote some material oblation made to God, is what I shall hereafter have a more fit opportunity to prove; and in the interim, taking this for granted, I think Ignatius says what is suf- ficient to establish the Sacrifice of the Eucharist in the judg- ment of all that are not pertinacious. The only exception, that our adversaries can have against these passages in Igna- tiusin behalf of the Sacrifice, is this, that there is no direct intimation of any solemn act performed in the Church, whereby the Eucharist was presented to God as a Sacrifice or oblation; and our adversaries’ known evasion is in this case to say, that the Bread and Wine are called an oblation, or the Bread of God, as representing the Body and Blood offered for mankind. Now we should not be destitute of a very peremptory and decisive reply to this exception, if we could content ourselves in arguing from the concessions of our adversaries. Dr. Hancock once at least?, and Dr. Wise very often, cites the words following, as the words of this blessed martyr; viz., “It is not lawful without the Bishop to baptize, or to offer, or to bring” (or rather to present) “the Sacrifice.” It is true, the first of these doctors would by the Sacrifice here understand only the lay-oblations; but this might easily be confuted by this one observation (to say no more at present), viz., that the words going next before do expressly speak of the Eucharist; and therefore these words must in common sense and justice be meant of the oblation
ic Dp. 2, Ap. oa, p. 1, Ap: md. p. 2. Ap. P Veteres Vindicati, p. 21. ts Po 2. AD.
SECT. iE
CHAP.
Luke xxi.4.
159 THAT CHRIST SACRIFICED
in the Eucharist, strictly and properly speaking, but the misfortune is, that these words are only in the interpolated epistles, and so are no just evidence with us: but when this glorious saint calls‘ the material Eucharist “the gift of God,” as he had before called it “the Bread of God,” these words — bid very fair for an actual oblation. For thus what was cast — into the Korban was called “the gifts of God,” as being
religiously presented to Him. But if St. Ignatius do not
support our cause in this particularity, yet it is clear he does
it in the rest; and I persuade myself, I shall meet with very
few readers so excessively hardened against the belief of the
Sacrifice, as not to think it sufficient that he points out to
us a visible Altar with proper officers attending it, and a
material Sacrifice, the Bread of God, wherewith this Altar
is furnished ; even though they should not be convinced, that
he uses any words necessarily importing an act of oblation.
But as to myself, I cannot believe that St. Ignatius would
call the Eucharist the Bread of God, and the gift of, or to,
God, if he had not known that it was then solemnly offered
in the Church of Christ.
But to advance one step nearer yet to the Apostles, and even to Christ Jesus Himself: St. Clement of Rome I look upon as an eminent witness of the Sacrifice in the Eucharist. Now he was infallibly a companion and fellow-labourer of the Apostles; and during their lifetime, constituted Bishop of the Christian Church in the imperial city of Rome. Cle- ment of Alexandria expressly calls him an Apostle; and the epistle of his, to which I am now going to appeal, was once of so great authority, that lessons were read in many Chris- tian Churches out of those venerable remains of this Apo- stolical prelate; whose words to our present purpose, take as follows"; “We ought to do all things in order, what- soever our Lord hath commanded us to observe; to cele- brate the oblations and liturgies at the appointed times: and He has commanded them to be done, not in a vain dis- orderly manner, but at appointed times and seasons. He Himself has determined, where and by whom He would have them celebrated, by His sovereign authority; that so all things, being done in a holy and well-pleasing manner,
3h. p. 2. Ap. Εν pala,
IN THE EUCHARIST. 153
may be acceptable to His will: they therefore, that offer their oblations at the stated times, are acceptable and blessed ; for, following the institutes of the Lord, they transgress not : for there are proper Liturgies delivered to the High-Priest, and a proper place assigned for the Priests; and there are proper ministrations incumbent on the Levites; and the layman is under the obligation of such injunctions, as are incumbent on laymen. Let every one of you, my brethren, celebrate the Eucharist to God in his proper station, with a good conscience, with gravity, not transgressing the canon of his Liturgy. Perpetual sacrifices, vows, sacrifices for sin, and trespass, offerings, are not offered every where, my brethren, but at Jerusalem only; and the oblation is made, not in every place there neither, but before* the sanctuary, and at the Altar.’ And afterwards, in the same epistle, having shewed what care the Apostles took to continue a succession of pastors in the Church, he adds‘, “It will be no small crime, if we eject those from the episcopal function, who offer the gifts in an unblameable and holy manner.” And here,
(1.) I take it for certain, that when he speaks of sacrifices, and of the time and place of offering them, and of the persons who are the proper ministers of them; he is not so to be understood, as if he was speaking to Jews, concerning the Levitical priesthood, and of the sacrifices to be offered by the law. For he was writing to Christians, who lived many hundred miles from Jerusalem, and of whom a very great part, I may say the majority, were Gentiles by birth and education, and never were under any obligation to the ritual laws of Moses. And it cannot be supposed, that St. Clement was persuading the Gentile converts to judaize, in opposition to the doctrine of St. Paul, to whose name in these epistles he pays so singular a deference.
(2.) And yet it is evident to a demonstration, that he speaks to these Christians of sacrifices, and of a Priesthood still in force; of “ oblations and Liturgies, which we (Chris- tians) ought to celebrate,” and which “the Lord had com- manded,” and which they who duly perform, “are acceptable,
* Or in the foremost, or upper part _forecastle of the ship. of. So ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ πλοίου, on the RCL Dal eps
SECT. I.
154. THAT CHRIST SACRIFICED
CHAP. and blessed.” Many of our divines do, with good reason, — from this place argue, that St. Clement here asserts the three orders of ecclesiastical officers, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, under the title of High-Priest, Priests, and Levites. And certainly the proof is as clear and strong for the sacri- fice, as for the priesthood. And I am persuaded, that they, — who will not allow both in the Christian Church, will never be able to shew the pertinence of this holy prelate’s discourse.
(3.) The truth is, he plainly enough points out to us both the priesthood and the Sacrifice of the Christian Church: for if you would know, who were the persons designed under the character of High-Priest, he tells you they were the Bishops, whom he describes under the periphrasis of “ offering the gifts ;’ and represents it as a crime, to “ eject them from the function of the episcopal office,” so long as they do this “in an unblameable and holy manner.” And what the ‘ gifts’ were, which the Bishops offered, I believe no man of good judgment will dispute. I know our adversaries would have nothing understood by that word, but the material oblations of laymen, without any immediate or necessary relation to, or dependence upon, the Eucharist. But then they ought to shew us, that these lay oblations were ever otherwise- offered in the Church by the Bishops, than at the Altar, and in the Eucharist.
τος It is pretty evident from the citations Ε have produced nm
inthe from St. Cyprian, Origen, St. Irenzeus, and Justin Martyr,
Eucharist.
that they knew but of one solemn act of oblation, and that in the Eucharist properly so called, which oblation St. Irenzeus says was taught by our Lord in the words of institution. And it is “the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist,” which Justin Martyr says Christ instructed us to offer; and which Origen and St. Cyprian assure us were offered; and Ter- tullian speaks of the Bread offered in the divine Sacraments. I am sensible, that, in the later Liturgies, the oblations of the people were, by a solemn prayer, presented to God on the prothesis, before the more solemn oblation of them, as a memorial of the grand Sacrifice; but in the Clementine — Liturgy", there is but one direct form of oblation, wherein uc, p. 53. Ap.
»"»
IN THE EUCHARIST. 155
the elements, presently after the words of institution, are offered to God in commemoration of our Saviour’s Passion. And I am not sensible of any distinct oblation of them mentioned in any early record of Christianity. There is indeed a form of thanksgiving to be used over the first- fruits, in the fortieth chapter of the eighth book of Constitu- tions; but this is so far from containing any formal act of oblation, that it does expressly speak of them, as “having been already offered,” (προσενεχθεῖσι,) and which was indeed no other than a prayer to be used by the Bishop, or clergy- men, upon their eating of them. But it will be asked, how or when the first-fruits or other lay oblations were presented to God by the Bishop, or officiating Priest; I answer, just as the carcasses of those animals, that were offered to God under the law, for sin-offerings or peace-offerings; for it does not appear, that they were presented to God by the priest whole or entire, otherwise than by the priest’s sprink- ling some of the blood, and burning some parts of these animals in the fire; for by this means the whole animal was offered to God. And in like manner, the whole mass of oblations made by the people was called and esteemed a Sacrifice, on the account of that portion of Bread and Wine, which was separated from them, and with most solemn prayers and praises tendered to Almighty God. I am sensible, the Bishop or celebrating Priest did receive all the oblations of the people from the hands of the Deacon, and deposited them on the Altar; and this act of the cele- brator may be called an oblation; but I apprehend, that the sacerdotal oblation, which is by the most ancient writers spoken of as one single action, is chiefly to be understood of the commemorative oblation, after the words of institu- tion, though not exclusively of the celebrator’s first pre- senting them on the Altar. For they were first placed on the Altar, in order to the more solemn oblation, which soon after followed. But suppose it could be proved, that in the most primitive times of Christianity, and even before St. Cle- ment wrote this epistle, the main mass of oblations were offered by the Priest, in a distinct prayer before the Eu- charistical oblation strictly so called; yet I apprehend it would be no great commendation to the Bishop, that he had
SECT. 1.
CHAP. Il.
156 THAT CHRIST SACRIFICED
duly performed this part of his office. But now St. Clement gives it as a character of good and sound Bishops, that “ they offer the gifts in an unblameable holy manner ; and there- fore must in reason be thought to speak of that part of the Bishop’s office, which was of the greatest moment. But now I presume, that neither the friends nor the adversaries οἵ the Eucharistic Sacrifice can suppose, that the presenting the mere lay oblations was such a considerable part of the Bishop’s office, that the measure of his merits and qualifi- cations should be taken, by his performing this part of his ministration without blame. The most momentous and sacred office of our religion is, beyond all doubt, the Eucha- rist; and to have performed this with a due regard to so holy an institution, was what might in justice entitle a man to the reputation of a good Bishop, and to a reverential treat- ment by the people; and therefore, when St. Clement ex- presses himself in such a manner, as that it is clear he thought, that they who had rightly offered the gifts had filled up the character of Bishops; he cannot in common reason be thought to speak of any gifts but those offered in the Eucharist. The worthy Mr. Bennet was fully sensible of this; and therefore, speaking of this passage, he says, “St. Clement of Rome, who wrote in the Apostles’ time, plainly speaks of the Bishop’s presiding in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper; for nothing else can be meant by their offering the gifts; especially if we consider, that the Eucharistical elements are called a gift, by St. Ignatius,” (he refers to the place in St. Ignatius last above cited ;) “and that this language is used by innumerable other writers, particularly those that are the most ancient; and it is notorious, that προσφέρειν signifies to offer a sacrifice, such as all antiquity thought the holy Eucharist to be*;” and I take this opportunity to pay my public acknowledgments to him for this frank and full declaration in behalf of the doctrine for which I am now pleading; and I dare lay this verdict of Mr. Bennet in the scale against the two or three books, which Dr. Hancock and Dr. Wise have printed against it.
But indeed we need not go so far as his forty-fourth chapter
x [See Bennet’s “ Rights of the Clergy of the Christian Church,” cap. iii. p. 62. Ed. 1711.]
IN THE EUCHARIST. Lae
to prove, that what he had said in the fortieth, was meant of the Eucharist. For he explains himself in the words immedi- ately following; which, though they begin a new chapter in the common division, yet have a close connexion with the words, which conclude the fortieth chapter; and therefore in my translation, I take no notice of breaking off of the fortieth chapter. And further, I turn εὐχαριστεῖν, by “celebrating the Eucharist ;” for so it signifies again in St. Justin Martyry, and in several other passages of the ancients; and indeed this place will, by itself considered, justify this version: for if no more were meant by this word than singing a hymn, or joining in a prayer of thanksgiving pronounced by the Bishop, or the celebrating Priest; I think it would be some- what harsh for St. Clement to speak of every one’s doing of it in his proper “ station, rank,” or “ order ;” especially if it be remembered, that in the words next before, the High-Priest, Priest, Levite, and layman, are expressly said to have their distinct parts in the Liturgies; and in the words next follow- ing, caution is given to every one not to transgress or exceed the canon of his Liturgy, or the regularity to be observed in the divine administrations. Now in bare verbal and mental thanksgivings, the share of all is equal or the same, except of him that officiates only; and the layman does the same with the Priest or Deacon, when the Bishop is present to pronounce the words; and I suppose there is no public office of religion in the Christian Church, where all, viz. Priests, Deacons, and laymen had their several parts to perform, but the Eucharist only; in which the layman brought his material oblation to the Deacon, by whom it was presented to the Bishop or officiating Priest, and by him laid on the Altar; and afterwards the whole Sacrifice solemnly presented to God, all the Priests standing by him - that officiated; the Deacons attending, and keeping a decorum among the people; and (after the oblation and consecration) the celebrator first receiving himself, then the Priests and Deacons; after which the celebrator and the Deacons administered or distributed the Eucharistical symbols to the people. And as these words cannot properly be ap- plied to any other part of religious worship; so it appears, yy d-p: 8.-Aps
SECT. 1.
158 THAT CHRIST SACRIFICED
CHAP. that they do most exactly fit the celebration of the Eu- = charist, when performed in the manner just now hinted. In a word, it must either be in singing psalms or saying prayers of thanksgiving, that every one is to observe his own particular station; which I suppose borders upon absurdity: or else it must be in the administration of the Sacrament. If the former, then I own, that such thanks- giving must be the Sacrifice here hinted at (and let my reader too believe it if he can, that Bishops Priests and Deacons were originally ordained for the keeping the better concert and harmony, in offering up the hymns and verbal thanks- givings of the Church; nay, he must believe too, that such hymns and thanksgivings are sacrifices for sin, and trespass- offerings :) but if these thanksgivings are not that Sacrifice, then certainly the material Eucharist is; which was to be proved. And that I may give some further confirmation to this, I shall consider the occasion St. Clement had to speak on this subject. It is evident to any man who reads this epistle — with application, that a sedition had been raised among the Christians at Corinth against their lawful pastors, whom the malcontent party endeavoured, at least so far as in them lay, to remove and depose. And because the lawful pastors were — still supported by a considerable number of the people, who kept to them, and to their former place of worship; there- fore these malcontents form a separate assembly, set up some of themselves or of the Deacons of their own side, to perform the part of pastors, without any authority from the Bishop and Presbytery, from whom they had made a defection; and (as schism is a contradictious thing) they seem to have chosen another day, in which to perform their devotions ; and not that which the Apostles, by our Saviour’s direction, had appropriated to this purpose. But it is observable, that whatever innovations they made in other matters, yet they affected to have the Sacrifice offered in the same external form and manner that was used by the Bishop and Presbytery and the uncorrupted part of the people, who still adhered to them; only that they had no Bishop, or Priests, regularly ordained. It was St. Clement’s design, by this epistle, to reconcile this mutinous party to their lawful pastors. Thus
IN THE EUCHARIST, 159
ὦ is easy to account for St. Clement’s reminding them of SECT. she stated place and time for celebrating the Eucharist ; and - ‘or his insisting so much on the distinction of orders in the Church, and for the hinted parallel between the Jewish vhurch, as to their priesthood and sacrifice; and if they had ἃ aside the Sacrifice, as they had their lawful pastors, he vould, no question, have laboured to convince them of their mistake; but he speaks to them, as to men that were sensible of the necessity of the Sacrifice; and therefore discourses apon this supposition; but argues only against the irre- zularity they were guilty of in offering It, by telling them, shat “Sacrifice is not offered at every place, but Jerusalem only; and not at every place there neither, but before the sanctuary and at the Altar.’ And St. Cyril of Alexandria
celebration of sacred offices and the paschal solemnity, to be performed in Jerusalem only—so that it is not lawful to fulfil the mystery of Christ, in any manner and place at discretion ; for the only fit and peculiar place is, in truth, the Holy City, that is, the Church: in which there is also a lawful Priest; and the holy offices are celebrated by sanctified hands; and incense is offered to God the Sovereign of all, and a pure Sacrifice, according to the voice of the rophet.” I shall dismiss this head, when I have first desired Malachi i. my reader to understand what I say of times appointed for δ ὁ the Sacrifice, not to be so meant, as if I thought that the Lord’s day was the only time for celebrating the Eucharist, in St. Clement’s judgment; but that this was the day on which it was performed with a greater concourse of people, with more large devotions and oblations, than on other days. For (says Justin Martyr), “On the day called Sunday, all hat live either in city or country, meet together at the same place, where the writings of the Apostles and Prophets are read, &c.; the Bishop makes a sermon; and prayers being over, there is bread and wine and water offered to the president*.” And again, “Upon the Sunday we all meet together>.” From what has been said on these words of 2d. p. 43. Ap. a Apology i. ο. 66. ¥ ce. 89.
160 THAT CHRIST SACRIFICED
CHAP. St. Clement, it is very evident that he does assert the Sacri- fice for which we contend ; and consequently, we have the testimony of the most unexceptionable piece of antiquity — now extant, next to the Scriptures themselves; of a piece of antiquity which some Churches looked upon as part of the sacred code. And I must believe, that this holy man knew the mind of the Apostles, and the practice of the © Churches settled by them, much better than any that lived — in after ages, and infinitely beyond any of our modern — divines, though they were able to understand all the tongues — of men, and even of angels; nay, I look upon the testimony of St. Clement to be, in effect, the testimony of St. Peter and St. Paul both in one; for he was disciple to them, and the Church of Rome, of which he was Bishop, was by them regulated; and from them St. Clement received in- structions in all things relating to the Christian doctrine and worship. But further, to them who demand the autho- ! rity of Christ Jesus and the Apostles for the Eucharistical — Sacrifice, I answer, that. That Christ 2. We have the express words of Christ Jesus Himself, sacriice’ recorded by St. Matthew, St. Mark, St. Luke, and St. Paul, stitution. fully attesting this great truth; namely, that He did, in the institution of this Sacrament, actually offer Bread and Wine to God, as His mysterious Body and Blood; and that He commanded His Apostles to do the same. (1.) I will shew that these words, “This is My Body given for you, This is My Blood shed for you,” do prove, that Christ gave, or offered the Bread and Wine to God, as His mysterious Body and Blood: and (2.) that He com- manded His Apostles to do the same. [See this more illustrated in Introduction to Part the Second.] From our Now in order to prove the first point, I take it for granted, saying, that when our Saviour says, “This is My Body given,” by ae oe ‘given’ He means offered, or sacrificed to God. This is a μενον. thing very plain in itself, and is, nay, must be acknowledged by all. When He said, “Take, eat,” He gave His sacra- mental Body ‘to’ His Disciples; when He adds “given for you,” He must mean given or offered in sacrifice to God ‘for’ them. The giving His Body ‘to’ His Apostles, | and giving it ‘for’ them, are two things perfectly distinct.
IN THE EUCHARIST. 101]
His putting It into their hands or mouths, was not giving ΒΈΕΘΤ, His Body for them; this was an action performed fo the Apostles: His giving, or offering It for them, was an ac- tion directed to God; which as it is very plain in itself, so it is expressly taught us by St. Paul; “for Christ,” says he, pp. v2. “has given Himself for us, an offering and sacrifice to God°.” {Whatever is offered to God is said very often in Scripture to be given to Him. And in a particular manner all sacri- fices are frequently called gifts; and the most eminent and valuable Sacrifice that ever was presented to God is most justly expressed by this word ; which, though small in sound, is very big in signification. It imports Christ’s free voluntary resigning His own most precious Body and Blood to God the Father as a ransom and Sacrifice for the sins of men. ]
* I'take it for certain and indisputable, that the Body here spoken of was now actually given, yielded, offered to God by our Saviour, as a Priest according to the order of Melchisedec. The three Evangelists before mentioned, and St. Paul, do every one of them speak in the present tense, διδόμενον, Luke xxl. 19, KA@pevov, 1 Cor. xi. 24, ἐκχυνόμενον, Matt. xxvi. 28, Mark xiv. 24, Luke xxii. 20; the Spirit, by Which they wrote, directed them all with an unanimous harmony to represent our Saviour as now performing the most solemn act of His Melchisedecian priesthood; and, therefore, as offering His Body and Blood to God, under the symbols of Bread and Wine. It is well known by all that are not perfect strangers to the Hebrew and Hellenistic diction, that the strongest and most strict way they have of expressing the time present, is by a participle of that tense. This way of expressing Himself our Saviour uses; and all the four holy writers, who give us the history of the institution, do agree in using this present participle ; and do therefore most gloriously conspire to teach us this truth, that our Saviour did now actually offer Him- self to God, under the representatives of Bread broken and Wine poured out. The rankest Deist, I apprehend, will scarce be able to persuade himself, that four writers should all by mere chance, in describing the same action, use the same
¢ “ Andif we duly consider this par- judgment, the rest inevitably follows.’’ ticular, which can be denied by none, [First Ed.] that do not want common sense and
JOHNSON, M
CHAP. ΤΕ
109 THAT CHRIST SACRIFICED
tense, and yet use it in the stead of another tense; that they — should all speak of the same thing as done in the present — instant of time, and yet mean, that it was to be done some considerable time after. What then can we think of those Christians, who can believe, that these holy penmen were all moved by the Holy Ghost to speak improperly, concerning an _ action of the greatest moment; and, particularly, to say, that it was done now, at this instant moment of time; when yet — they believed, and knew, that it was yet to be done; that twenty hours were to pass before it was to be completed? If indeed one or two of these inspired writers had represented our Saviour as speaking in the present tense, and the others had expressed it in the future, our adversaries might have had some umbrage for saying, that the two former were to be interpreted by the two latter; but that they had no regard to grammatical niceties, nor are we to build any thing upon such uncertain bottoms. But when every one of those holy penmen, who give us the minutes of this action, which was one of the most considerable that ever He did, and which is related by four of them, do all say, that our Saviour said, “is given,” or “broken,” “is shed;” I cannot think it becomes wise or modest men to pretend to correct these holy writers, as if they knew the meaning of Christ’s words better than they who were present, when they were spoken. It is therefore pre- posterous to tell us, that by zs we are to understand shall be. Nor have our adversaries any pretence for giving so un- natural a sense to these words. They tell you, it is the present tense for the future ; and if you ask, upon what grounds this is said, they have nothing to reply but this, viz. That Christ’s Body was not in any sense given, or offered to God, until It was crucified. Which is to take that for granted, which my reader sees, was denied by the ancient Fathers. [What if some few MSS., and the old Italic translation, and St. Cyprian, and the translator of Irenzeus, and the canon of the mass in the Church of Rome, say “ shall be given, shall be shed?” Those can be of no weight, when laid in the scale against the concurrent authority of most and the best of the Greek books.] Nor does the Scripture give any countenance to our adversaries, while they would persuade us, that Christ’s oblation was performed on the cross only. The four histories.
IN THE EUCHARIST. 163
f the institution plainly declare, that Christ’s Body was SECT. iven, or sacrificed in the Eucharist ; nor is there one word n all the New Testament, that can be urged in contradiction
it. Christ is often said to have “ given Himseif for us ;” but
hat by this phrase is meant nothing but His dying for us
pon the cross, we are nowhere told; and since He Himself
as informed us, that in the Eucharist His Body was given,
is Blood shed for us, we have just reason to believe Him.
e is sometimes said to have “borne our sins ;” and that this
as done upon the cross, that the mactation was there per- ormed, is not disputed. It is said, that “Christ was once Heb. ix.28. ffered, to bear the sins of many.” And that the oblation
as but one is a most certain apostolical truth; and yet they,
who limit this one oblation to the six hours’ time during hich He hung upon the cross, are destitute of any proof from Scripture. That the Sacrifice was not finished until
our Saviour expired on the cross, nay, until He entered into
he Holy of Holies, even heaven itself, is evident enough; nor
is it less evident, that He began this sacrificial solemnity by ffering His own Body and Blood, when He instituted the ucharist. Christ indeed bore the punishment of “ our sin 1 Pet. xi.24. in His own” natural “ Body on the tree.” But when St. Paul, above cited, says, “ He was offered to bear the sins of many ;”
it is manifest, that there was an oblation previous to the suf- erings, or ‘ bearing’ there mentioned ; as when the Apostle
says, In the 26th verse of that chapter, that Christ “‘ appeared
once to put away sin,” His appearing was before His putting
way ; so when he says here, that He was “ once offered to ear,’ He must in some sense ‘offer’ Himself, before He could
e capable of ‘bearing; and it is evident, that His crucifixion
as a consequence of His offering Himself; and this is the
ull of what St. Paul says, viz. that “Christ was not often to Heb. ix. 25. offer Himself; for then He must often have suffered;” He i offered Himself but once, and therefore suffered but once.
He began this oblation in the Eucharist, and continued it on
the cross. Nothing but His death could be a satisfaction for sins; and this was actually accomplished on the cross:
and this death of His was never to be repeated; it was the effect of His personal oblation of Himself, which He began
in the Eucharist ; and since He was but once to offer, He was
m 2
CHAP. Il.
Heb. ix. 7.
164 THAT CHRIST SACRIFICED
but once to die. [See much more of this in Introduction to Part Second. |
It seems clear to me, that the one personal oblation, per- formed by our Saviour Himself, is not to be confined to any one instant of time; but commenced with the Paschal so- lemnity, and was finished at His ascension into heaven, there to appear in the presence of God for us. And if our adver- saries will restrain the oblation to the cross alone, then they must exclude Christ’s sacerdotal entry into heaven as the holy of holies, and say, that the oblation was finished before the Blood of the Sacrifice was brought into the most holy place, and there offered, contrary to what the Apostle teaches us, and therefore few, I suppose, will presume thus far. And if it was consistent with the one oblation, to be made in the Holy of Holies as well as on the Altar, in heaven, as well as on the cross; then I cannot conceive, why the oblation made in the Eucharist should make the oblation cease to be one, any more than the double offering it on the cross and in the Holy of Holies, already mentioned. If our adversaries wiil needs have it, that the sacerdotal act of oblation was instan- taneous and transient, and performed on the cross only; I am pretty confident, they will find no proof of this singular opinion. That the mactation and satisfaction was made and done upon the cross; that the substantial Sacrifice of Christ’s natural Body was there once for all yielded to God the Father, is owned on all hands. But my ingenious reader will dis- tinguish between the mactation, and the sacerdotal act or act of oblation ; and though the former belongs to the cross only, yet this cannot truly be affirmed of the other: if our adver- saries will have it, that Christ never acted as a sacrificing Priest here on earth, but in His crucifixion ; they must first prove, that He did not solemnly give His sacramental Body to God; and then they must produce some cogent argument, whereby to make it appear, that He did upon the cross, by an internal act of His mind, if not in express words, make a sacerdotal oblation of Himself, which I conceive will be a very hard task; that He did so in the Eucharist, is clear.
If it could be proved, that our Saviour offered Himself on the cross only; it would from thence follow, that in this one oblation He did not at all act as a Priest according to the
IN THE EUCHARIST. 165
order of Melchisedec. For Melchisedec, as the ancients ob- sEcT. serve, is never reported to have offered a bloody sacrifice ; if ΘΕ he offered any, which will not admit of a dispute, it was a sacrifice of bread and wine, as a prefiguration of the grand Sacrifice. And if, therefore, our Saviour did ever make an oblation according to the order of Melchisedec; He must have done it in the same materials, and therefore in the Eucharist. And from this my reader will observe, how much more agreeable the notions of the Fathers were, who believed that Christ blessed the spiritual progeny of Abraham, as Melchisedec did the father of the faithful, by an oblation of Bread and Wine; than the notions of those, who must assert, if they will discourse consistently with their own hypothesis, that though our Saviour was a Priest according to the order of Melchisedec ; yet in the main point of the priestly office, that is, sacrifice, there was no correspondence between them. In a word, it is agreed, that Melchisedec typified the Priest- hood of Christ in blessing Abraham, and that the foundation of all the blessings conferred on Abraham and his spiritual posterity, was the mactation of Christ’s natural Body. Τ is evident, that the way of deriving the merits of Christ to particular persons, or imparting benedictions to them, has always been by Sacrifice. It is clear, that Melchisedec’s priesthood was a sacrificing priesthood; but there is no probability, that he offered bloody sacrifices, but bread and wine only; and that therefore in such a sacrifice he im- parted a benediction to Abraham; and by consequence, that our Saviour, as a Priest of the same order, did intend to confer benedictions on the people, as Melchisedec did on Abraham ; and therefore performed the sacerdotal oblation in Bread and Wine. And here, as has been proved, we have the judgment of the ancients with us; who do generally assert, that Christ did offer Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, and offered them as a Melchisedecian priest, and as symbols of _His Body and Blood ; and that in, and by these symbols, He did mysteriously devote His natural Body to suffer according to the will of God; and this is a certain proof, that the Fathers took ‘ given,’ not only as expressing, but as meaning and intending the time then present. Let the Papists then go on with their dabitur and effundetur, “shall be given,”
CHAP. Il.
166 THAT CHRIST SACRIFICED
“shall be shed; and it fits their notion well enough, who believe that the same Body and Blood was substantially of- fered in the Eucharist and on the cross; but let Protestants — stick close to the primitive Church, and to the Evangelists, — and to Christ Jesus Himself; Who undoubtedly declared, — that in that very instant of time, i which He celebrated the original Eucharist, He did at once offer, or give to God Bread and Wine, and gave them as a pledge and earnest of the ; natural Body and Blood, which was soon after yielded to God on the cross. But to make this matter more clear if possible, I will propose two questions.
(1.) What is That which Christ here calls His Body and Blood? And here all antiquity, as we shall soon see, and the greatest part of Protestants, but especially the Church of England, give in their unanimous answer, that It is conse-— crated Bread and Wine.
(2.) The other question is, What is That of which Christ here says, that It is given, or offered to God? And yet it seems strange to me, that this should be a question with — those, who believe that Christ here calls Bread His Body, Wine His Blood; for certainly if this Bread, of which our Saviour speaks, is His Body, then this Bread is also given to God, if our Saviour speak according to the common rules of construction ; for the Bread and the Body of Christ are here the same thing. For no other Body of Christ could be eaten, no other Body of Christ had yet been substantially offered to God. The argument used by Protestants to prove that what Christ gave to His Apostles, and what they received, was Bread, runs thus: What He took, That He blessed ; what He blessed, That He brake; what He brake, That He gave ; what He gave, That they received; therefore what they received was Bread: for that was what He took. But there are some words omitted in this induction, viz. “My Body given for you;” and therefore I must take leave to add, what He gave was His Body; what was His Body, was given for them ; what was given for them, was given to them; what was given to them they received, therefore what they received was_ Bread, actually offered to God as His (sacramental) Body. And this is to be applied to the Wine, mutatis mutandis. And indeed St. Luke so expresses our Saviour’s words at
IN THE EUCHARIST. 167
the delivery of the Cup, that ‘ poured out’ cannot be under-
SECT. i
stood to belong to the natural Blood of Christ, but to the re- ——~—
presentative Blood, or the Wine. ‘This cannot be perceived by reading our translation; but the words grammatically rendered are these, “This cup poured out for you,” or offered as a libation to God for you, “is the New Testament,” or covenant “in My Blood:” for ἐκχυνόμενον, being a nomi- native, cannot agree with αἵματι, which is in the dative; but our adversaries will rather make St. Luke guilty of a sole- cism, than allow that he could speak so decisively against their notions: for this is their way of dealing with the holy writers upon this occasion. I desire my reader further to observe, that when I vary ‘poured out,’ by those words ‘offered as a libation,’ I had an eye not only to truth, but to Mr. Calvin, who in his “ Harmony on the Gospels,” says, that our Saviour made a libation with the cup, and that “it used so to be done in sacrifices®.” O si sic omnia! It is certain to a demonstration, that all the other particulars are predi- cated of the Bread and Wine; it is certain, in particular, that when He says, “This [Bread] is My Body,” Body is predi- cated of the Bread; and it must be astrange sleight that can grant the word “Body” to be so predicated ; yet when we come to the next word “ given,” we must find another subject for it. For it is to be observed, that this proposition, “ This [Bread] is My Body,” is false, if meant of His natural Body, which could not be eaten; it must therefore be meant of His sacramental Body, and therefore of His sacramental Body it is also said, that It is “ given for us.”
But I may be told that our Saviour’s meaning is, “ This
¢ [* Quia Lueas bis porrectum a Christo calicem memorat, querendum est primo loco sitne repetitio (ut inter- dum Evangeliste bis rem unam dicere solent) an vero Christus, postquam ex calice libaverat, hoc idem secundo ite- raverit. Quod posterius mihi veri- simile est. Scimus enim solennem in sacrificiis libandi ritum observatum fuisse a sanctis Patribus. Unde illud Psalmi exvi. ver. 13, ‘Calicem salutis accipiam, et nomen Domini invocabo.’ Itaque non dubito, Christum ex more vetusto libasse in sacro convivio, quod rite peragi aliter non poterat: idque
diserte refert Lucas antequam ad noyi mysterii narrationem descendat: cujus ratio distincta est ab Agno Paschali. Hoc quoque ex recepto solennique usu fuit, quod gratias egisse nominatim di- citur Accepto calice. Nam initio Cene precatum fuisse non dubito, ut nun- quam sine Dei invocatione ad mensam aceedere solitus est. Sed nune rur- sum eodem officio defungi voluit, ne ceremoniam omitteret quam sacre libationi fuisse annexam nuper os- tendi.’—Calvin. Harmonia Evangel., p- 321. Ed. Geneve. 1595. ]
CHAP. II.
168 THAT CHRIST SACRIFICED
[Bread] is [a symbol of] My Body given for you;” to which I answer,
(1.) That though I do allow this to be true in some sense, which will hereafter be seen; yet I do not think it fair, first to suppose that our Saviour meant the words in our sense, and then to build arguments upon that supposition.
(2.) Lanswer, that this will not at all clear the point under. debate ; for supposing the words stood, as just now repre- sented, in the English tongue, yet the question is, how our, Saviour and the Evangelists would have expressed it in the Greek, that is, whether it would have been τοῦτό ἐστι σύμ- βολον τοῦ σώματός Mov διδομένου, or διδόμενον ; or whether the meaning of those English words should be, “This is a symbol of My natural Body, which natural Body is given for you ; or whether it should be, “This is a symbol of My natural Body, which symbol is given for you.” If it were to be expressed in the first manner, it might seem favourable to. them that may make this allegation; and yet in reality it must be against them; for so long as the participle is in the present tense, the Body must be now given; and if the Bread was a symbol of the Body which was given, while our Saviour, was alive, it is certain that That Body was not yet substan- tially given, but only symbolically ; and if symbolically, then under the pledges or symbols of Bread and Wine; and if it was given or offered under the pledges of Bread and Wine, then the Bread and Wine must be offered; and if they were not then offered, it could not be said that our Saviour’s Body was then in any sense given to God: if in the latter, it would be directly against them. But it is vain for any man to assume to himself the liberty of determining positively, which manner of exposition our Saviour would have thought most proper ; and to say the least of it, it is begging the question, for any man to assert peremptorily that it ought to be varied according to his own sentiments.
(3.) 1 answer, the most safe and just way of proceeding is to reason upon the words as they stand in the text; and 1 apprehend that neither of these modes of expression would have come up to our Saviour’s meaning and intention; for it appears, by His using the present tense, that His design was not to say, “This is a symbol of My natural Body now
IN THE EUCHARIST. 169
given for you;” because this was not yet actually given ; nor
for it has been shewed that He intended somewhat more, viz. under this symbol actually to resign His Body to the cross, there to be slain. And further it will appear ere long, that the Eucharistical Bread is somewhat more than a type, or symbol; that it is Christ’s Body in power and effect, though not in substance; and therefore fitly presented to God as a pledge and earnest. And this may indeed be sufii- ciently inferred from our Saviour’s choosing to express Him- self in these words rather than any other. For it savours of impiety, to suppose that our blessed Lord, in speaking on so extraordinary a subject, did not make choice of the most apt and adequate words, whereby to let His disciples into His meaning; and He did so express Himself, that mm many hundred years after His ascension the main body of Chris- tians throughout the world, however they differed in other particulars, yet had no disputes about this.
Thus the reader may see, that the main stress of the dis- pute lies in effect in this single question, Whether our Saviour did offer His Body and Blood in the Eucharist ; to which our Saviour’s express answer is, “This Bread is My Body now given for you: This Wine is My Blood now shed for you.” Our adversaries, to shift off this, tell us, our Saviour used one tense, but meant another; He said, “is given,” He meant, “shall be given ;” and further, they will not allow the word ‘given’ to be applied to His sacramental Body, though every word in the sentence, excepting that, is ' by them acknowledged to belong to that Body. Now this is perfectly precarious and evasive; and because our adversaries will not be convinced with the most plain, natural, obvious construction of the words, we have no means left us but to refer our cause to the arbitration of the most competent, dis- interested, and uncorrupted judges, the primitive Fathers and councils, and the earliest liturgies, that are now in being; and they do unanimously, whenever they have occasion to speak of this matter, pronounce in favour of us; and I am bold to say, that none of them ever said the contrary. They say indeed that they have no such sacrifices as the Jews and heathen had, offered by blood and fire; but those very
only to say, “This symbol of My Body is given for you:” -
CHAP. II,
170 THAT CHRIST SACRIFICED
Fathers do upon occasion assert the unbloody Sacrifice; and if this be not sufficient tv establish this doctrine in the opinion of all equal judges, we know not what will. We know that nothing can be so plainly and decisively expressed by any writer, in relating a matter of fact, but that cunning men, by virtue of some fetch, or by pretending that the expression is figurative, may evade the sense and meaning of the author ; and especially if they may be allowed to affirm at discretion, that one tense is used for another ; that the writer for instance uses the present, but means the preterperfect, or future. For though it is owned that such enallages do sometimes occur, yet no man, that has not some turn to serve, will suppose any such figure used by his author, when a fair account can be given of the words, without any such supposition; and our adversaries in this case have no pretence for an enallage, but only this, that they must either assert such a figure to be here used, or else for ever abandon their cause. But neither are we destitute of other proof from the words of institution ; for, (2.) Whatever Christ did Himself, the same He com- manded us to do. If therefore He offered His own sacra- mental Body and Blood in the Eucharist, He has positively commanded us to do the same; and we are without excuse, if we do wilfully and designedly omit it. Having therefore before shewed that Christ did here make an oblation, it inevitably follows, that we must do so too, taking those words, “Do this in remembrance of Me,” in the sense, which our adversaries themselves put upon them; but we affirm further, that the word ποιεῖν, when joined with a noun that signifies any thing proper to be offered to God, does very often signify to offer, or present to the Divine Majesty, by way of sacrifice. Dr. Hickes, in his “ Christian Priest- hood,” has produced a very great number of proofs to this purpose, from p. 58 to 68; and when our Saviour says of the Cup, τοῦτο ποιεῖτε ὁσώκις ἂν πίνητε, it cannot in strict- ness be otherwise rendered than, “Offer this as oft as ye drink it.” For it is certain, that ποιεῖτε affects τοῦτο, in the same manner that πίνητε affects it; and that therefore we are to ‘do,’ or ‘make’ what we ‘drink,’ or else we are to offer it; and since we cannot be, in any propriety of speech, said to make or to do the Cup in the Eucharist, it remains,
IN THE EUCHARIST. 171
that we are to offer it; for that τοῦτο has ποτήριον for its antecedent, is evident from this, that we cannot be said to ‘drink’ any thing there spoken of, but the Cup only. See ““ Propitiatory Oblation,” p. 33. And lest my reader should not have the “Christian Priesthood” at hand, thereby to be convinced that ποιεῖν has this signification, I will only just mention the places which are there referred to, viz. Herodotus, lib. 1. 6. exxxi. cxxxili; the LXX Greek translators, Exod. xmix. 36. 38, 39; x. 25; Levit. iv. 20; vi. 22; 1x. 7.16. 22; xiv. 19. 30; xvii. 9; xxui. 12; Deut. xvi. 1; 1 Kings viii. 64; xvili. 23. 25, 26. 29, (the words are not in the Hebrew;) 2 Kings x. 21. 24, 25; 2 Chron. xxx. 1,2; xxxv. 1; Ezra vi. 19; Numb. ix. 2; Josh. v. 10; 2 Kings xxii. 21; 2 Chron. xxxv. 17,18, 19; Psalm lxv. 19; Baruch i. 10; Heb. xi. 28; 1 Tim. ii. 1. The same is proved from Justin Martyr, Chry- sostom, the Constitutions, &c.
I must also remind my reader, that the word ’Avapynats, “memorial,” which is rendered by the English translators “remembrance,” is a sacrificial word; and is by the LXX translators applied to the offering the shew-bread, which was a most plain type of the Christian Sacrifice, Levit. xxiv. 6, 7. And itis from this text of the LXX that the ancient Fathers and Liturgists take the word προκείμενα, which I commonly have rendered “lying in open view;” and this shew-bread is, in the text now cited, expressly called ‘‘an offering of the Lord.” And it is well known, that the memorial was the.most essential part of the oblation; indeed, no part of it but this was directly presented to God bya solemn act of ob- lation; but the whole sacrifice was rendered operative and beneficial, by virtue of this memorial ; as you may see, Levit. 1]. And we do not pretend,that im the Eucharist the substantial Body of Christ is offered, (that we leave to the Papists); but only, that we offer the sacramental Body and Blood, as a me- morial of the natural; not as a cold remembrance, but as a powerful, efficacious, prevalent oblation.
There is in the Apostolical Constitutions an observable passage, which I cannot but recommend to my reader’s perusal on this occasion’; “ Do ye,’ say the Constitutions, “on our Saviour’s resurrection offer that Sacrifice, which
f bb. p. 47. Ap.
SECT I.
CHAP. Il.
172 THAT CHRIST SACRIFICED
Christ gave you in charge, by us [the Apostles,] saying, ‘ Offer this for a memorial of Me.’” If we turn the last words, “ Do this in remembrance of Me,” it will not be easy to see, how they could suppose, that a Sacrifice was here enjoined, taking the words apart from those that are before; I there- fore turn them in that sense, nm which I suppose the Con- stitutions understood them, and by this means their way of expressing themselves is very intelligible. There is, I own, another supposition, upon which this conclusion may be drawn from the words, as usually translated, “Do this in remembrance of Me;” the supposition is, that our Saviour, in the foregoing words, had declared the Bread and Wine given to God, as His representative Body and Blood; for if our Saviour did declare, in the former sentence, that His Body was actually offered, (as I have proved He did); then it is confessed, that it was sufficient for Him to say, “Do this,” that is, offer Bread and Wine, as I have done. And let our adversaries choose which of the two they please; for upon either of the suppositions the doctrine of the Sacri- fice is effectually established. And I persuade myself, that with all impartial readers, both will be thought more than suppositions ; and that our adversaries will find them so by their own experience, if they think fit to try their skill and strength upon them.
That this was not only the notion of hae or them, who drew these Constitutions, but of St. Paul himself, will seem very probable to him that reads with attention 1 Cor. x 16—21: where the Apostle, having cautioned the people against idolatry, that is, eating meats offered to idols in the heathen temples, proceeds to prove, that by eating such meats, they honoured and communicated with those false gods, to whom they were offered: and to make this good, he runs a parallel between things offered to the true God, and things offered to idols. He begins with the Chris- tian Eucharist, and asks, ver. 16, whether “the Cup there blessed were not the communion of the Blood of Christ, and the Bread there broken, the communion of the Body of Christ?” he must take it for granted, that this Eucha- ristical Cup and Bread had been offered to God: for other- wise the parallel is lost: for the Apostle’s argument pro-
IN THE EUCHARIST. 173
ceeds thus; viz. the Bread and Cup in the Sacrament is the eating and drinking of a Sacrifice, as the banquets in the heathen temples are; and by partaking of the Sacri- fice, we communicate with one another, and with that God to Whom the Sacrifice is offered: “ For we,” says St. Paul, “being many are one Bread and one Body, for we are all partakers of that oue Bread,” or “loaf;” and so united to God, and Christ Jesus, and each other, by partaking of that one Sacrifice: and that St. Paul supposes what was eaten and drunk to have been first offered, appears further, by the following instance, ver. 18, “ Behold Israel after the flesh,” or the Jewish people; and “are not they who eat of the sacrifices” offered by them, reputed to be “partakers of,” or “ guests at,” their “ Altar;” and so to communicate with that God, to Whom the sacrifices are offered, as well as with those men, who eat together with them? St. Paul applies both these instances to the case of eating heathen sacrifices in the idol temple, ver. 20, in those words, viz. “TI say that the things, which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God,” as the Christians do im their Eucharist, and the Jews in their temple service; and I would not “that ye should have fellowship with devils,’ by eat- ing things offered to them, as Christians and Jews com- municate with the true God, by eating things offered to Him. And this the Apostle speaks yet more clearly in the 21st verse, “Ye cannot” consistently “drink the Cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils ; that is, the Wine offered to the true God in the Eucharist, and that libated to the false gods in the heathen temples; ‘‘ Ye cannot” consistently “be partakers of,” or guests at, “the Lord’s Table,” or Altar, “and the table” or altar “of devils.” For I suppose it is as evident, that the Cup of the Lord, here mentioned, had been offered in honour to Him, as that the cup of devils had been offered in honour to them; and that the Table of the Lord denotes an Altar erected for His worship, as the table of devils denotes an altar raised for the worship of devils; for by the table of devils you cannot justly under- stand feasting tables distinct from the Altar; because to “ be partakers of the table” in tis verse, is parallel to that of being “partakers of the Altar,” ver. 18: and from hence
SECT. I
CHAP. Il.
174 THAT CHRIST SACRIFICED
we might conclude, that the “Table of the Lord” is a phrase signifying His Altar, if we had no other proof of it.
And that this is the true state of the Apostle’s argument, I allege the authority of Dr. Whitby himself, who introduces St. Paul thus explaining himself (in the last paragraph of his annotation upon ver. 21.) “This I say to complete this argu- ment, and to render the sacrifice offered to idols parallel to those of Christians, and of Jews; that as these are offered to the honour of Christ and of the God of Israel, so the things which the Gentiles sacrificed they sacrificed to devils and not to Gods.” I would not have my reader from hence conclude, that the doctor is a friend to the Christian Sacri- fice; (he has sufficiently declared the contrary ;) but only desire him to observe the force of Divine truth, which will sometimes make its way into the eyes of men though they wink never so hard.
It may seem a just objection against what is here offered, that the Cup and Bread, ver. 16, are simply called the com- munion of Christ’s Blood and Body, and not of His Blood shed, and of His Body given for us, as at other places: for if those words had been added, the argument had been plain and obvious to all. But to this I answer,
I. That St. Paul frequently speaks elliptically; nay, he does so in this very chapter; the word ‘water’ is clearly omitted, ver. 4, for not the rock itself but “the water which flowed out of the rock followed the Israelites in the wilder- ness ;” as, I suppose, everybody will allow. Another remark- able ellipsis occurs, ver. 7, for to prove that some of the people were idolaters, he cites those words, Exod. xxxii. 6, “the people sat down to eat, and drink, and rose up to play :” he takes no notice, that what they eat had first been offered to the golden calf, to whom they had erected an altar, and offered bhurnt-offerings, and brought peace-offerings, as ap- pears by the words immediately foregoing: and this is an ellipsis of the same sort with that, ver. 16, where he mentions not the bread and wine as offered to God, ver. 7, he takes no notice, that what the people eat had been sacrificed to the calf.
2. The reason of his using an ellipsis, ver. 7, and ver. 16, seems to have been one and the same, viz. that the history of
& [Whitby’s Paraphrase, vol. ii. p. 175. ]
IN THE EUCHARIST. 175
the golden calf, and [that] of the institution of the Eucharist, were so well known to the Corinthian communicants, that he thought it needless minutely and verbatim to rehearse them : and if either were known to them better than the other, it was certainly the institution of the Eucharist ; for they had it rehearsed to them once a week at furthest. St. Paul’s chief aim was to prove, that men cannot eat, or partake of things offered to a God, whether a true or false one, but he must be supposed to intend this eating or participation done in honour to that God, and with a design to communicate with Him: the eating or partaking being the main thing he had in his view, whereby he intended to convince those loose Corinthians of their sin, in eating of things sacrificed to idols; he did not think it necessary always to repeat the circumstance of its being offered before it was eaten. And since it is evident, that he does not mention, ver. 7, the oblation of the peace-offerings upon which the Israelites feasted, we are not to wonder, that he omits in the sixteenth verse the oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ: but in the twenty-first verse he does as strongly intimate, that the Cup in the Eucharist was offered in honour of Christ, as that the cup in the idol feasts had been offered to devils. I think more need not be said to shew, that he does as necessarily imply the offering of the latter, as of the former; and that without this supposition the pertinence and consequence of the Apostle’s reasonings are not to be perceived.
Thus, I conceive, I have fully established the doctrine of the Sacrifice, not only from the monuments of the primitive Church, but from the words of Christ Jesus Himself, and of His Apostle St. Paul. And I must continue of this opinion, till 1 am convinced by some direct evidence from Scripture, that Christ did at any other time or place here on earth, perform any sacerdotal act of oblation; that Christ’s Body was substantially sacrificed on the cross, must be acknow- ledged by all; but by “sacrificed on the cross,’ we must then mean, that He was slain as an expiatory victim, and not that He offered Himself as a Melchisedecian Priest: for He declares, that He did this in the Eucharist: for “‘ This,” says He, “15 My Body given” to God “for you.”
And though we ought in every Eucharist to do what Christ
SECT. i
176 THAT CHRIST SACRIFICED
CHAP. did; yet we are not to do it in all respects, with the same __!__ ends and designs that He did. The chief end, or primary vir the. intention, which Christ seems to have had in the celebration pete of the first Eucharist, was to devote and resign Himself up ends that to God, as a Sacrifice for the life of the world, and to imsti- Christ did. : 5
tute a perpetual commemoration of It: but we do neither the one, nor the other. We do not offer the Body of Christ in order to It’s being crucified ; but as a memorial of It’s having been thus devoted to crucifixion, or mactation, now long since past. We do not institute either a Sacrament, or a Sacrifice ; but put in practice the institution made so many hundred years since by Christ Himself. We have a parallel to this in the Paschal type: for the original sacrifice of the lamb in the land of Egypt was chiefly designed for propitiating the Divine Majesty, in order to avert that judgment (viz. the death of the first-born) from the Israelites, which befell the Egyptians, and to be the pattern of the Paschal sacrifice to the Jews in all succeeding generations ; but the annual pass- over, though it were as truly a sacrifice as the original, was rather a commemoration of the deliverance of the Israelites from that calamity, than an apotreptic sacrifice ; and was not intended as an institution, but as a continuation of the pass- over; though it was propitiatory, as well as other sacrifices.
[And thus I have beyond all just contradiction proved, that Jesus performed the office of a sacrificing Priest, when He first instituted the Holy Communion ; and that He at the same time ordained His Apostles and their successors to suc- ceed Him in that sacred office; and whether Melchisedec’s priesthood were a type of Christ’s in offering bread or wine or not (of which, I believe, few impartial readers will doubt), yet that in thus offering a meal-sacrifice He fulfilled the pre- figuration of the pontifical sacrifice® offered under the law, and that He intended the latter as well as the former to be a perpetual daily Sacrifice, will be granted me, by all that are not very hard to be convinced. |
᾿ ᾿ ᾿
Pun
-βὰ
by Jesus Christ. Our adversaries do never speak with more
Σ : : ; eee It is true, our adversaries have an effectual answer to all '
in genera 3 cone : never this, and whatever else can be said in defence of the Sacrifice bolished. 4 : ς : Ε Ρ | aoe of the Eucharist ; and that is, that all Sacrifice is abolished HM
» See Levit. vi. 20—22; and ch. i. sect. 1. of this book mox ab initio.
IN THE EUCHARIST. 177
assurance, than under this head; and they think they may ΒΕΟΤ. very well spare themselves the pains of an argument to prove —— this, when they have vulgar prejudice on their side; and in truth this is the only proof they have. Christ is nowhere said to have abolished Sacrifice. Nay, I am bold to say, that there is not a text in Scripture, that can in the eyes of any judicious man seem to countenance our adversaries in such an assertion. The only passage in the New Testament, that may seem to look this way, is that [wherein] St. Paul transcribes the words of David from Psalm the fortieth, and represents Christ as saying, “ Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldest not; but a Heb. x. Body hast Thou prepared Me: in burnt-offerings and sacri- "Τὰν fices for sin Thou hast had no pleasure; then said I, Lo, I come to offer the delightful thing, or Sacrifice, O God— Above, when He said, Sacrifice and burnt-offermg, and offering for sin Thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein, which are offered by the law; then, said He, Lo, I come to offer the delightful thing, or Sacrifice, O God: He taketh away the first, that He may establish the second,” that is, He taketh away sacrifice and burnt-offering and offering for sin, “which are offered by the law of Moses :” for the Apostle expressly tells us, that He meant no other sacrifices ; and that the Mosaical sacrifices are abolished, we all gratefully acknowledge; but that the delightful Sacrifice, the prepared or consecrated Body is abolished, our adver- saries themselves will not dare to say. And we have seen several of the Fathers expressly interpreting these words, of the Eucharistical Sacrifice, offered by Christ Jesus the night before He suffered, and this Sacrifice He has commanded to be perpetuated until His second coming. So that I cannot apprehend, that they have the appearance of any word in the Holy Scripture for so bold an assertion as this, that all Sacri- fice is abolished by Christ: and we have heard the ancientest of the Fathers, Irenzus, Justin Martyr, nay, Ignatius, and St. Clement of Rome, affirming the contrary. And as for my construction of the phrase τὸ θέλημα ποιεῖν, by “ offering the acceptable thing, or Sacrifice,’ I elsewhere account for it. {But I shall speak more of this in the Second Part. ]
The only specious objection against the doctrine of the Objection
OU
5 “ ; 5 A Ay ey Sacrifice, which comes now to be considered, is that which is Heb. ix. x. JOHNSON. N considered.
CHAP. Il.
chap. x. 10. 14.
chap. x. 12. 18.
178 HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
drawn from the ninth and tenth chapters of the Epistle to the Hebrews ; viz. that Christians are said to be “sanctified” and “perfected” by the one Sacrifice offered by Christ in person ; and especially, that since “ remission of sin” is ob- tained by Christ’s once offering Himself, therefore “now there remaineth no more sacrifice, or offering for sin.” Now to this I answer,
1. That the most that can be argued from these passages, taken in the sense of those who make these objections, is, that the Eucharist cannot be a piacular or expiatory victim ; that there is no occasion for any sacrifice but that of the cross, for the taking away the guilt and punishment of sin. And let us at present grant this; yet it will not from thence follow, that it is not a Sacrifice of thanksgiving properly so called, in which Bread and Wine are offered as the repre- sentatives of the Body and Blood of Christ, and as testimonies of our gratitude to God, for the redemption of the world by Christ Jesus. For if the Apostle had in express terms de- clared, that the Eucharist is no sacrifice for sin; yet no rational man would from thence infer, that it is not a ma- terial Sacrifice of praise. The very same thing may be said of the Passover, that it was no sin-offering, not primarily, at least, intended for the expiation of guilt; and yet we cannot doubt, but that it was a Sacrifice properly so called, unless we will contradict the Scriptures. And indeed the very name Eucharist imports what is so called to be principally, and in the first place, a Sacrifice of praise. And if we consider it as such, we must be forced to own at the same time, that it is such a Sacrifice of praise, as was intended to be a means of conveying to us all the effects of that piacular victim, which Christ offered in His own person. For as it is allowed on all hands, I think, that sacrifices are federal solemnities between that God, to whom they are offered, and the votaries or worshippers ; so it is, I think, a truth acknowledged by all Christians, that are not of a very base allay, that the Chris- tian Eucharist is a rite, whereby the covenant between God and man in Christ Jesus is ratified and renewed; and if it be once granted, that the Eucharist is a material Sacrifice of thanksgiving, and such a Sacrifice of thanksgiving, as that in, and by it, pardon and grace are actually applied to the souls
HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED. 179
of the communicants; I am apt to believe, that the more SECT. ingenuous part of our adversaries would scarce think it Ξ worth while to dispute, whether it were directly and pro- perly an expiatory sacrifice for sin, or not. For if it were so allowed to be in effect, why should they contend about names and words? And therefore what follows is not added, as if I thought it necessary for the support of the Altar and Sacrifice ; (for a sacrifice of thanksgiving is in all respects as much a sacrifice, as a sin-offering;) but it is added, in defence of several of the ancients, and even of the Apostle himself, whom I apprehend to speak elsewhere of the Eucharist, as of a sacrifice for sin. And therefore,
2. I shall answer more directly to the allegations from the Epistle to the Hebrews.
(1.) By considering what the Apostle means by perfecting, and sanctifying, and by sacrifice for sin.
(2.) By shewing, that the perfecting, sanctifying, and sacrifice for sin here meant by the Apostle, are not exclusive of further perfection, sanctification, and sacrifice.
(3.) And that the Apostle afterwards, in the tenth chapter, speaks of the oblation in the Eucharist.
(1.) I shall consider, what is here meant by “ perfecting,” and “ sanctifying,” and by “sacrifice,” or “ offering for sin.” And we cannot but know, what sort of sin-offering is here meant; if we do but first understand, what the Apostle in- tended by the words “ perfecting,” and “ sanctifying.” And here we must lay it down, as a certain foundation to all that follows, that it is something performed once for all, and for ever : some privilege purchased and conferred by the personal oblation of Christ, never to be forfeited, or revoked. For the Apostle argues the imperfection of the Jewish sacrifices, from this consideration, that they ‘“ could not for ever make the chap. x. 1. comers thereunto perfect ;” (for so Dr. Whitby! and others do justly construe the words). ‘The perfection therefore here said to be procured by the Sacrifice of Christ, must be a perpetual perfection, without any end, or intermission, so long as the world endures. And to this purpose the Apo- chap. x. 30... stle remarks, that we are “sanctified by the offering of the Body of Jesus Christ once for all.” And again, “ by one ver. 14.
i [vol. 11. p. 638.] N2
CHAP, Il.
2 eS hee:
ver. 17, 18.
ver. 2.
180 HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sancti- They are so perfected, as that God will “no more remember their sins ;” and by consequence, they shall have no more occasion “for an offering for sin ;” nay, the perfec- tion is so great, that “ the worshippers, once purged, have no more conscience of sin.” Now before I proceed, I shall from hence observe, that the Apostle cannot here intend a moral sanctification ; as Grotius, with the Socinians and Quakers, would have τ". For that is a thing not wrought all at once, but gradually. There is no man so sanctified in this life, but he may lapse into sin; and if the greatest saint on earth commits a known ‘sin, no doubt but God imputes it to him, and therefore remembers it, until it be repented of and ex- piated. No grace is indefectible, no human holiness without some intermissions, on this side of heaven; and therefore none in this life can, in this sense, be “ sanctified for ever,” or exempted from having a “ consciousness of sin ;” except you will suppose, that the death of Christ makes the elect im- peccable ; or with the Antinomians assert, that God does not impute sinful actions to the elect. I should dwell longer on these particulars, if I had any reason to apprehend, that I were like to have any readers infected with such pestilential notions ; nor can those baptized Christians be said to be per- fected for ever, who, upon their repentance and proper ap- plication to the Divine mercy, have the pardon of their former actual known sins sealed to them. For they may relapse, and too often do, into the very same sins. Nor can it, I suppose, in reason be doubted, that the Jewish sacrifices did, by virtue of the Divine promise, “take away sin” for the time past ; but they could not do it “ for ever,” for the time to come; and this was that particular, wherein the Sacrifice of Christ does so
“ὦ “ὦ. eg το EeEEeEEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeEeeEeEeEeeee
ae,
> ove
much excel those of the Law.
k ({Grotius thus annotates on ver. 2. ‘** Si semel purgati fuissent (quemad- modum sunt veri Christiani 1 Pet. i. 22.) non ultra conscii sibi essent novo- rum quotannis peccatorum, que ex- piatione egerent.’’—Grotii Opera, tom. li. vol. ii. p. 1046. ed. Amstel. 1679.
Socinus says: ‘‘ Sacrificia illa (sei- licet Legis) a peccatis retrahendi nul- lam vim habebant: quapropter, cum, peractis illis, homines in eosdem errores
But neither does the Sacrifice
i
denuo laberentur, eadem offerenda se- pius erant, et quotannis per ipsa pec- catorum expiatio procuranda; Christi vero sacrificium a peccando cessare facit, et perpetuo hane vim obtinet. Quo consecuto, jam necessario etiam omnium peccatorum remissio conse- quitur. Et ita nulla amplius pro pec- catis oblatione est opus.’’—Fausti So- cini Opera, tom. ii. p. 167. ed. 1656. ]
HEB. ΙΧ. AND X. CONSIDERED. 181
of Christ take away the moral turpitude of sin, nor the ob- SECT. noxiousness to punishment, in those that are guilty of it, but ᾿- for the time past only. It remains therefore, that I directly and positively shew, in what sense Christ does once for all perfect, or take away sin, for the future, as well as for the time past. For it is evident, that to “ perfect for ever,” and to purge, or sanctify the worshipper, so that he may never again “have conscience of sin,” are two phrases signifying the same thing, in the first and second verses of this tenth chapter. It is clear beyond all dispute, that no sacrifice does once for all take away the moral stain, or guilt of sins, hereafter to be committed ; or exempt men from sin for the time to come; therefore the Apostle cannot be understood in this context of any such perfection. If I am now asked, what else can be the Apostle’s meaning ?
I answer: By perfecting and taking away sin once for all, St. Paul plainly describes that privilege purchased by Christ’s death, and once for all conferred upon His Church, whereby the whole body of Christian Priests and people are qualified to make their public addresses to God with acceptance, not- withstanding their corruption of nature, and the known actual sins of particular members. It is the universal opinion of the main bulk of mankind, or at least was so of old, that men are not fit to approach the Divine nature, without some mediator, or some preparative lustrations; and therefore not only the heathen, but the Jews, by God’s appointment, had variety of rites and sacrifices, whereby not only to propitiate the Deity, but whereby to initiate and fit themselves to per- form those propitiatory services. It were very easy to enlarge on this head, both from the sacred and profane writers ; but it is a thing so generally known and allowed, that I shall not insist upon it; but only observe to my reader, that St. Paul, who is now granted by all men of learning, I think, to be the penman of this Epistle, does frequently insist upon this par- ticular, as a very eminent privilege of the Christian Church, which makes it the more credible, that he should speak of it so largely here. He tells us, that “through Christ we have Eph. ii. 1s. access to the Father,” that “in Christ Jesus we have boldness, Eph. iii. 12. and access with confidence,” that “ by Him we have access into Rom. v. 2. this grace wherein we stand.” But in this Epistle to the
John x. 9; xiv. 6.
182 HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
Hebrews, he is more copious on this subject. “ For,” says he, “we have not an high-priest, who cannot be touched with a feeling of our infirmities—Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace.” Nay, which is much more to our present purpose, he winds up his discourse in the ninth and tenth chapters, concerning the perfecting and sanctifying power of the one Sacrifice of Christ, with this application, viz. “ Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the Holies, by the Blood of Jesus—Let us draw near with a true heart, in full assurance of faith ;” and in this sense I suppose it is, that our Saviour calls Himself “the door” and “the way ;” and says, “no man can come to the Father but by Him,” that is, it is by virtue of the merits of His death, that we have admittance into the Divine presence in this life, notwithstanding the pol- lutions and infirmities of our nature, and even our known sins. It is a privilege granted to the whole Church; and in this respect it is indefeasible. Some particular men may lose this privilege by apostasy; but the very essence and being of a Church depends entirely on this privilege. The Church is a society of men, incorporated together for the sake of Divine worship; but if the infirmities and sins of Priests, or people, do render their worship unacceptable to God, then they are incorporated to no purpose at all. Nay, we cannot be sure, that the Sacraments themselves are valid, if either the known or unknown pollutions of the Priests who officiate, or the members of the Church assembled together with us, could obstruct the communications of Divine grace. So that this franchise was one of the principal ends of Christ’s death ; and without it the Church itself could not be, and particular men could never have their consciences purged from the terror of their own sins, or of other men’s sin, who join with them in the worship of God, so as that they could, with due confidence and assurance, approach the throne of grace; and this franchise was once for all, and for ever, purchased and conferred upon the Church of Christ. And further to confirm and establish this notion, I will first shew, that the words and phrases used by the Apostle, in treating on this subject, are such as were used in the old Law, in relation to the lustrative rites and sacrifices thereby enjoined. And I shall further observe, that the sacrifices mentioned by
HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED. 183
the Apostle in these two chapters, as types of the Sacrifice of SECT. Christ, were such initiative or lustrative sacrifices. =
Now the words and phrases used by the Apostle here, and used by Moses, and the Greek translators of him, in relation to these initiative or lustrative rites and sacrifices, are these, viz. τελειοῦν, which we turn (with no great exactness) ‘ per- fecting, but which properly signifies to ‘ consecrate’ to some office, or dignity; the words καθαρίζειν, and ἁγιάζειν, ren- dered in the English ‘ purge’ and ‘sanctify,’ carry a signifi- cation much the same with τελειοῦν, though not so full and strong. ‘Sin,’ ἁμαρτία, denotes that incapacity which is in all creatures, in this corrupted state, for the worship of God ; to ‘take away sin,’ signifies the removing this incapacity ; and the ‘ offering,’ or ‘sacrifice for sin,’ the material oblations that were to be used for this end. Iwill give some proofs of each particular.
Τελειοῦν does most commonly signify to ‘consecrate’ to the Priest’s office: so Heb. ii. 10, Christ is said to have been ‘ perfected,’ that is, consecrated to His Priesthood. And again, Christ “being made perfect,” that is, ‘consecrated, (Gr.teAevw- Gels,) “ He became the author of eternal salvation,” &. And it is so rendered by our translators, in those words, “the law maketh men high-priests, who have infirmities ; but the word of the oath, which is since the law, maketh the Son, Who is consecrated for evermore,” εἰς αἰῶνα τετελειωμένον. The consecration of Aaron and his sons is usually expressed by this word. What is in Hebrew “thou shalt fill,” or rather “ yerfect the hand of Aaron,” and is by the English there rendered, “thou shalt consecrate them,” is by the LXX rendered τελειώσεις "Aapav, &c. Exod. xxix. 9. 29.33. And again, Num. iii. 3. So the consecrated priest 15 τετελείω- μένος, Ley. xxi. 10; the day of his consecration ἡμέρα TE- λειώσεως, Lev. vill. 33; the burnt-offering on that occasion ὁλοκαύτωμα τῆς τελειώσεως.
“Αγιάζειν has much the same signification. God directs Moses, what he shall do to Aaron and his sons, to ‘ hallow,’ or ‘consecrate’ them (Gr. ἁγιάσαι αὐτοὺς) “to minister in the Exod.xxis. priest’s office ;’ and again, “Aaron shall be hallowed (Gr. : ἁγιασθήσεται) and his garments,” ver. 9; and in the next chapter, “thou shalt anoint Aaron, and his sons to hallow
CHAP. ie
John xvii. 10:
Lev. xvi. 6,15.
John xiii. 1.
184 HEB, IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
them,”’ or ‘consecrate’ them (as the English very justly has it) “that they may minister unto Me in the Priest’s office,” ver. 30; and we nave the same words repeated chap. xl. 18. “ And in this sense” (saith Dr. Whitby, from whom I have borrowed most of the references) “our Saviour saith, ‘for their sakes I consecrate [sanctify] Myself, that they may be sanctified in the truth,’ that they may be consecrated to their office, and set apart for My service. For as Aaron and his sons were hallowed, and set apart for God’s service by a Sacrifice ; so Christ’s Apostles were sanctified, and set apart to their office, not only by the unction of the Holy Ghost, but also by the piacular victim, which Christ offered for their sins; and accordingly in these words, ‘he that sanctifies’ 15 Christ, that offered Himself,—‘and they that are sanctified,’ are they that by His Blood are purified from their sins, and fitted to draw nigh to God, and make a royal priesthood'.” And if the learned Doctor had remembered this his excellent annotation on Heb. ii. 11, when he was writing his notes on Heb. vii. 27, he would most probably have given us a clearer explication of it, than he has. The words in the English translation stand thus, “Such an High-Priest became us — Who needeth not daily, as those high-priests, to offer up Sacrifice, first for Himself, and then for the people; for this He did once, when He offered up Himself.” There can be no doubt, but these words are meant of the sacrifices offered on the day of expiation ; for then only the high-priest offered first for the sins of “his own house,” or family, the priests ; and then for “the sins of the people:” and therefore ca? ἡμέραν must signify on ‘every day’ of expiation. But what I would especially remark is, that Christ can in no sense be said to offer for His own sins, whatever Grotius conceited™ ; nor does Dr. Whitby allow of Grotius’s wild notion; but then he gives no account, how the Apostle could say that our Saviour did what the high-priest used to do, viz. offer first, ὑπὲρ τῶν ἰδίων ἁμαρτιῶν, “and then for the people ;” whereas by making ἰδίων to relate to the Apostles, who are called Christ’s ἔδιοι, as being those “who did peculiarly belong to
1 [vol. ii. p. 599. ] sins; but then, by sins, they say, is m [‘*Grotius and the Socinians improperly signified His natural in-
contend, that Christ is here said 10 firmities and sufferings.’’—Whitby in have offered up Himself for His own loco, vol. ii. p. 624. ]
HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED. 185
Him ;” and supposing the word ἀποστόλων understood to be gECT. the latter substantive to ἁμαρτιῶν, the words may fairly be —' rendered, “ He offered first for the sins of them who belonged
to Him, and then for the people ;” and this Jesus undoubtedly
did, “when He offered up Himself.” And as for the word καθαρίζειν, it is applied to the purgation of the people by the sacrifices offered on the day of expiation (which will hereafter appear to have been lustrative sacrifices :) ‘The priests shall make an atonement for you, to cleanse you (Gr. καθα - picat ὑμᾶς) from all your sins, and ye shall be cleansed,”
(Gr. καὶ καθαρισθήσεσθε.) And though the word be not often used in relation to Aaron’s being consecrated, yet the
day on which this was performed is called ἡμέρα καθαρισμοῦ
by the LXX, in the Hebrew 07537 Oy, which is otherwise rendered by our translators; and in the same verse, these
two words of which I am now speaking are promiscuously used, and applied to the same sense, “and thou shalt Exod xxix. cleanse” (Gr. μαθαριεῖς) “the altar, when thou hast made *™ atonement” (Gr. ἐν τῶ ἁγιάζειν) “for it, and thou shalt anoint it to sanctify it.” And the leper that had been cured
of his disease, and comes to offer his oblation upon that occa-
sion, is called καθαριζόμενος ; and it is added καθαρισθήσεται,
“he shall be clean:” not cleansed of the disease; for the Ley. xiv. offering was made on presumption that he was already cured ; ' *”- but he shall be acquitted from the disability he was under,
of entering into the tabernacle for public worship. And the reader cannot but observe, that the altar was cleansed or purged, and sanctified, and had an atonement made for it, as
well as the priest ; and therefore the consecration, sanctifi- cation, or whatever else you please to call it, could not con-
sist in having a discharge from moral guilt, or from obnox- iousness to punishment. For the altar was not capable of that; and the leprosy was no moral sin, but a bodily pollu- tion; and therefore they do but deceive themselves, who are
so far carried away with the vulgar sense of these words as to imagine, that any internal moral holiness is implied in them,
in these places. It is true, I have not observed that τελειοῦν
is in the Levitical law applied to any inanimate thing, or to
any other persons, but to the priests only; but it ought not
to be omitted, that in most of the places above cited, from
CHAP.
2 Sam. xii. 118}
Isa. Vis 7.
Zech. iii. 4,
186 HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
Exod. xxix. and Numb. 111. the Greek is τελειοῦν χεῖρας, “ to consecrate the hands,” as the Hebrew also signifies “ to fill,” or “ perfect the hands ;” and therefore it cannot ration- ally import any intrinsical holiness or innocence, but such a separation for holy offices, as might give the people and them- selves assurance that what they did in the service of God was valid and acceptable, notwithstanding any personal sins or infirmities. For the case of the Jewish people had been miserable indeed, if the success of their sacrifices and devo- tions had depended upon the real internal graces of the priest, or on his being free from the stain of moral guilt. This was what it was impossible they could certainly know ; it was sufficient for them that they might be eye-witnesses to the high-priests and priests performing those lustrative rites and sacrifices, whereby they were qualified to continue the holy functions, for which they were separated ; and by the repetition whereof, their other oblations and services for themselves and the people were acceptable in the sight of God.
᾿Αφελεῖν, or ἀφαίρειν ἁμαρτίαν is a phrase, which un- doubtedly sometimes signifies to take away the guilt of any immorality, and to free the offender from all punishment; as in the case of David, to whom Nathan said, “the Lord hath put,” or taken “away thy sin;” but in other places it imports no more, than to remove from men the incapacity they are under to appear before God, or to perform their part in holy offices; so when the angel, who touched Isaiah’s lips with a coal, said, “thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin is purged,” there is, I believe, no sufficient reason to believe, that any more is meant by it, than that some impedi- ment in the prophet’s speech, or some legal uncleanness, that he was then under, was thereby removed. And when the Lord said unto Joshua the high-priest, “I have caused thy sin to pass from thee, and will clothe thee with change of raiment,” or “ with the long robe,” as the LXX render it; it seems probable, that the meaning was, that God would restore him to the function of the high-priesthood, and accept his ministrations ; notwithstanding his long conversation with the heathen under his captivity, by which he must have con- tracted many legal uncleannesses, by which he was under a
HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED. 187
disability for the performance of his office. Butthere is more sEcrT. decisive evidence for this signification of the phrase, where — God charges Aaron, that the golden plate shall be upon his 5° ΣΥΝ forehead, that he may bear, (Gr. καὶ ἀφαρεῖ,) or, and “he shall take away the iniquity of the holy things, which the children of Israel shall hallow —that they may be accepted before the Lord.” And Numb. xviii. 1, “The Lord said unto Aaron, Thou and thy sons shall bear the iniquity of the sanctuary ;” for by the words here rendered “ bear the ini- quity,” by the LXX λήψονται ἁμαρτίαν, I suppose no man can doubt, but that we are to understand, that they shall bear or carry them away, viz. by lustrative sacrifices, particularly those on the day of expiation. Now since no man can be- lieve, that there is in any inanimate creatures sin, or iniquity, according to the sense in which the word is now commonly taken among us; it remains, that we must thereby under- stand that ineptitude, that is in all creatures, to be made use of in the service of God, without a previous lustration. There can be no other pollution in any creatures void of sense, and dedicated to religious uses, but what proceeds either from that universal corruption, which upon the fall of man spread itself through the whole terrestrial system; or from the rela- tion it bears to them that offer it, that is, sinful men; or from the abuse of it, by the profaneness and sacrilege of others: and any of these might for a time render it unfit for holy uses ; but nothing could render it liable to any real guilt or punishment; and therefore “ taking away sin,” in some cases, must indisputably signify no more, than relieving men or other creatures from some disability which they are under, of worshipping God in public, or of being made use of to this purpose ; and by consequence, ‘ sin’ must in such cases signify no more than an incapacity of worshipping God, or being made use of in the worship of God; “and a sacrifice, or offering for sin” must signify, what is offered to God in order to remove this incapacity, and to reinstate men in the enjoyment of this privilege. And there is abundant proof of this in the law of Moses; from which the Apostle, especially in this Epistle, generally takes both his ideas and diction, Now it is very evident, to all that read the books of Moses with any degree of attention, that the English ‘sin,’ the Greek
CHAP. ne
Numb. xix. 9. 17.
Lev. v. 2. 6.
188 HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
ἁμαρτία, and the Hebrew ΠΝῸΠ signify, not only immorality, but ‘ uncleanness’ and ‘ impurity ;’ and the same may be said of what is commonly turned ‘iniquity’ by the English, ἁμαρτία by the Greek, and is yy; in the Hebrew. You have just now heard Moses speak of “ the iniquity of the sanctuary, and of the things hallowed” to God. So the ashes of a red heifer are said to be “a purification for sin,” and the sin was touching a dead body, grave, &c. ; and “‘ifa soul,” that is, a person, “touch any unclean thing,—he shall bring his trespass-offermg to the
_Lord for the sin that he hath sinned.” Nay, we read of a sin-
Lev. xiv. 2. 19. 10: ἢ): 99: 91.
Lev. xv. Ta SADE
offering and a trespass-offering, to be made for a man that was to be purified after the leprosy, which was a disease which, to be sure, no one chose; nay, which it was impossible in some cases for a man to avoid: there was nothing voluntary, and therefore nothing morally culpable in it; and yet the man, who had laboured under it, before he could be admitted as a worshipper in the tabernacle, must have a sin-offering presented in his behalf. And the case was the same with the man or woman that had an issue, by what means soever they came by it, whether through their fault, or their misfortune ; a sin-offering was required, before they could be restored to the privilege of making their appearance before God in the place of worship; and in all these cases an atonement was to be made for the person, that came to be cleansed, or purified. So that I judge it clear beyond any reasonable doubt, that these phrases may fairly be taken in this sense ; and that in the ninth and tenth chapters to the Hebrews, they cannot safely be taken in any other, than what I now contend for. But that this may further appear, I will also consider all those sacrifices, of which the Apostle here makes mention, in the same order that the Apostle speaks of them. And I suppose, the consideration of these sacrifices, and the con- nexion of St. Paul’s discourse, will give us some additional hight into the subject, of which I am treating.
Now the Apostle, having given a brief description of the sanctuary, or court of the priest, which he calls “ the Hollies ;” and of the innermost adytum of the tabernacle, which he calls “ the holiest of all,” or “the Holy of Holies ;” and of the sacred furniture of both, in the five first verses of the ninth chapter: in the sixth verse he observes, that “the priests who
eG EEO
maa
=
HEB. ΙΧ. AND X. CONSIDERED. 189
celebrated the Divine service went continually into the first ;” and so he drops his discourse of this particular for the present; but he proceeds to speak of the second, or the Holy of Holies, “into which,” says he, “ the high-priest went once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and the errors of the people.” In which words, without dispute, he alludes to the solemn sacrifices performed on the day of expiation; and those were lustrative sacrifices, whereby both priest and people were, by a sort of reconsecration, prepared for the worship of God for the ensuing year. Our translators very aptly turn the twentieth verse of Levit. xvi. by saying, that Aaron was “to reconcile the holy place, and the tabernacle, and the altar, andthe congregation.” The Jews had no right or tenure in God’s house, but what was renewable from year to year; and therefore, at the return of every day of expiation, their term expired ; and if they expected to enjey this privi- lege for the year now coming, they must renew their services and devotions, by which they held this privilege of appearing before God. The virtue of the sacrifices offered on the last day of expiation was spent; and priest, people, tabernacle, and altar must be reconciled, before they could have any claim, or pretence to the honour of appearing, or being used, before the Divine majesty in the ensuing year; and there- fore the Apostle truly observes, that “these sacrifices could not consecrate him that did the service,” that is, the high- priest himself, as “pertaining to conscience ;” that is, they could not consecrate him “ for ever,” or for a perpetuity, as the Apostle explains himself. The high-priest knew in his own conscience, that his reconsecration was but for the term of one year, and that the whole system of their worship and polity must at the end of that term be reconciled again, as being not founded upon so durable a bottom as ours is, so as to remain without any renewal or reconsecration “ unto the end of the world.” The Apostle further depreciates the Mosaical ceconomy, as “ standing only in meats, and drinks, and divers washings,’ &c. and in the next words exalts Christ Jesus, and His religious institutions, by calling Him “a High-Priest of good things to come.” Now as the state of things under the Messias is called by the Apostle, ac- cording to the familar language of the Jews, “the world to
SECT. 1.
yer. 9.
chap. x. 1.
ver. 10.
CHAP. 11.
ch. ii. 5. Heb. vi. 5.
190 HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
come,” which is said “ not to be put in subjection to angels,” and as the efficacy of Christian ordinances is called “the powers of the world to come,” so “ the good things to come,” of which Christ is here styled the High-Priest, seem plainly to be the Sacrifice of His Body and Blood; [as St. Jerome hath observed, that the Apostle speaks to the Hebrews with great reserve concerning the Eucharist ; so this is ap- parent in this place and in ch. x. 1. He clearly opposes the Christian ordinances to those of the Jews: as he calls the former ‘ carnal,’ so he calls the latter ‘ good.’ You may, ifyou please, render the words, ‘“ Christ bemg come an High-Priest of good ordinances ;” for δικαιώματα is the substantive going next before. We shall soon have occasion to observe, that St. Paul in other places of this Epistle calls Christ “ the High-Priest of our oblation.” And I take this to be of much the same signification with the title here given Him, viz. “ High-Priest of the good ordinances,” or of His own Body and Blood,| and in this eleventh and the twelfth verse he tells us, that Christ entered into the holy place, viz. heaven, “ by,” or “through a more perfect tabernacle,” than that erected by Moses, “a tabernacle not made with hands, that is to say, not of this [sort of] building,” that the Jewish place of worship was. It is strange to me, that there should be any dispute, what is here meant by “ the tabernacle not made with hands, through which Christ entered into heaven.” It seems so plain a description of “the Church of the first-born,” the Apostles, and other converts which Christ made while He was here on earth, and with whom alone He conversed for the forty days between His resurrection and ascension, and from the midst of whom He was afterwards assumed into heaven; that I see no room to doubt, but that the Church is this tabernacle ; and
-if the reader please to consult commentators upon this place,
he will be more inclined to believe so still, by observing the incongruity of those conjectures, which have been advanced by some others. As then the high-priest, on the day of ex- piation, went from the altar through the second court, or the apartment of the priests, into the Holy of Holies ; so Christ Jesus from the altar of the cross proceeded with triumph into heaven through His’ new sanctuary the Church, not made with hands; and this, says the Apostle, He did, “ having
HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED. 191
obtained eternal redemption for us ;” an eternal redemption srcr p ) Ρ Εν
from the incapacity, we are under by nature, of rendering acceptable worship to God; and from an endless repetition of these burthensome rites and sacrifices, by which the Jews annually purged themselves from this incapacity.
The Apostle proceeds, in the 13th verse, to mention another method of lustration, prescribed by the law of Moses, where Numb. xix. the ashes of a red heifer mingled with water, and sprinkling the unclean person, that is, him who had touched a dead corpse, grave, &c., are made a necessary preparative to the being readmitted into the tabernacle, the place of public worship. The Apostle says, these ashes “sanctified to the _ purifying of the flesh ;” that is, the man was thereby anew | dedicated or prepared for the service of God: the defilement he had contracted by the touch of the corpse, or grave, was taken off, so that he was no longer debarred from making his public addresses to God; to this sense Dr. Whitby, after | Dr. Hammond, interprets the words very justly. And if | the unclean person presumed to appear in the tabernacle, | before he had submitted to this method of purgation, he |} is said “to defile the sanctuary of the Lord.” Therefore Numb. xix. | by the “blood of bulls and goats,” in this verse, he must a mean the sacrifices offered on the day of expiation ; because | he attributes the same effects to them, that he does to the | ashes of the red heifer, namely, that they “ sanctify to the | purifying of the flesh,’ or procure admittance into the | presence of God. ‘The difference between them seems only | this, viz. that the ashes of the heifer were to be used by | single persons, in case of one particular defilement; the | sacrifices on the day of expiation were intended for the | benefit of the whole body of priests and people, and for all sorts of sin and uncleanness, that they might be no | hinderance to the acceptableness of the public worship ; | and particularly, that by this means they might be qualified | to offer such sacrifices for sin, as had a promise of full pardon | annexed to them; of which see Levit. iv. 20. 26. 32. 35. | And since the Apostle in the protasis mentions only lustra- tive sacrifices and rites, whereby men were prepared for the _ solemn worship of God; therefore it is very unreasonable and | incongruous, to suppose, that in the apodosis he considers
CHAP. “the Blood of Christ” any otherwise than as a lustrative
192 HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
sacrifice, whereby we are ‘ purged,’ or ‘ dedicated, to “ serve the living God;” the word λατρεύειν signifies the serving or worshipping God in a solemn public manner; nay, in the sixth verse of this chapter it evidently signifies, to perform the priest’s part in the public service; and in the ninth verse, λατρεία denotes the functions that were peculiar to the priests; but we will give it for granted, that in this verse it imports the worship both of priest and people; and St. Paul argues very strongly, that if the ashes of the red heifer could so far expiate the uncleanness of men, as to prepare them for the Levitical worship; much more may the Blood of Christ give us confidence to make our approaches to God. The Apostle expresses the purgation or preparation we re- ceive for the service of the living God, by the phrase of “purging our consciences from dead works;” because by Baptism all past sin whatsoever is forgiven; and there particular men have the effects of Christ’s death so com- municated to them, that by it, as by a most perfect lustrative sacrifice, they are for ever after emboldened to join in the public devotions of the Church, so long as they contimue members of it; but no man can from hence in reason argue, ~ that sins to come are forgiven in Baptism, as well as sins past ; or that Baptism does exempt us from sin, or the imputation of it; or that sins committed after Baptism are not pardoned in and by the public worship, especially the Eucharist; and that therefore the conscience of such, as have relapsed into sin after Baptism, is only so far purged from dead works by virtue of Baptism, or by any other means, as that it is per- mitted and encouraged to make application to God for pardon in the evangelical way, that is, especially in and by the Eucha- rist, as has and will appear. And the main, of those to whom the Apostle here speaks, were undoubtedly baptized Christians, who do not receive forgiveness of sins before worship ; but by the means of that public worship and Sacrament of His Body and Blood, which was intended by Him for the remission of sins. And therefore the Apostle, ver. 15, seems to say, that Christ’s death was designed chiefly ‘for the remission of transgressions, under the first covenant,’ meaning that of Moses. He was speaking to such as had been born and
HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED. 193
bred in the Jewish religion, and such men had no sins to be § ες T. forgiven, upon their conversion to Christianity and Baptism, = but only such as they had committed under the first covenant or testament, or while they had been Moses’s disciples: as for sins committed after Baptism, the Apostle, toward the end of the Epistle, reminds them of an Altar and Sacrifice, where chap. xiii, remission was to be had. Some perhaps may from hence " infer, that I would confine the effects of Christ’s death to the pardon of sins, which we receive in Baptism only; and therefore I add, for the avoiding of all such misconstruction, that it is very evident from the words of iustitution and from the suffrage of antiquity, that all the blessings of the New Testament, and whatever graces we receive in the Eucharist, are derived from the effusion of the natural Blood of Christ upon the cross; that this was the original Blood of the New Testament, and the other only the full and perfect representative of that Blood; that by the obla- tion and effusion of Christ’s personal Blood, the new covenant was once for all enacted and established; that by virtue of this covenant, all baptized Christians and ordained Priests have a perpetual right of being admitted to perform their parts in the Christian worship, the most solemn and essential article of which worship is the holy Eucharist. And therefore the death of Christ is the foundation of all that pardon of sin, which we receive in the Sacrament; not only because by the death of Christ we have a right to all Christian ordi- nances purchased for us; but because the Eucharist derives all its efficacy and power from the first and grand Sacrifice, personally offered by Christ. But I cannot apprehend, how the pardon purchased by Christ can be applied to baptized Christians, in and by the service and worship of God, as it is beyond all dispute; and yet, that we receive this pardon as previous to this worship, and in order to our due per- formance of it; as they must think, who make the Apostle say, that there must be a full pardon of all sin, before we can be in covenant with God; or, that ‘‘ God can enter into covenant with none, who lie under the guilt of sin,” as Dr. Whitby expresses his sentiment on this text". This is
n [God, being an holy God, can them into His service, whilst they lie enter into covenant with none, or admit under the guilt of sin unpardoned, and
JOHNSON. 0
CHAP. II.
Gen. ix. 8,9.
Deut. ix. 8.
194 HEB, IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
a very strange opinion, and supported with as strange proofs. He says, “ Noah found grace with God, and with him He established His covenant.” Whereas it is very obvious, that God established His covenant not only with Noah, but with his sons, and with his seed after him, and will the Doctor answer for the innocence and integrity of them ? He says, “Abraham believed God, and this was imputed to him for righteousness, and then the Lord makes a cove- nant with him by sacrifice.’ But, with submission, this covenant was not perfectly confirmed, until circumcision was instituted. And this covenant was made, not only with Abraham, but with his seed and his family; and will the Doctor give his word for it, that Ishmael, and all the 318 servants of Abraham, before they were circumcised, were free from all guilt and sn? But the most unhappy instance of all is, what he mentions in the last place, I mean, that of the Jews: “They,” says Dr. Whitby, “ offered burnt-offer- ings, &c. and then God enters into covenant with them.” The Doctor takes the liberty to represent the covenant as yet to be made, when the sacrifices had already been offered ; whereas, in reality, the covenant was plighted and confirmed by offering the sacrifice, and sprinkling the blood, as the words of Moses sufficiently testify, viz. “This is the blood of the covenant, which God hath made with you;” but the Doctor knew very well, that the Jews were a stiff-necked people, and that God Himself complains “ of them, that from the day they departed out of Egypt, they had been rebellious against the Lord.” And that but a little while before this covenant was made, they had made a head, and murmured against God and Moses. And therefore he was very sensible, that in order to prove, that they did not now he under the guilt of sin, there was no way left but to intimate that this guilt was taken away by sacrifice, and this sacrifice offered as previous and in order to the establishing of the covenant. Whereas the truth is, that the blood of those sacrifices was
so have not found grace in His sight. xy. 10. 18. So, Exod. xxiv. 6, the
Noah found grace in the eyes of God,and Jews offer burnt-offerings, and sacrifice —
with him He established His covenant, peace-offerings to the Lord, and the Gen. vi. 8. 18. Abraham believes in blood is sprinkled upon all the people, God, and this was counted te him for and then He enters into covenant with righteousness ; and then the Lord makes _ them.’’—-Vol. ii. p. 634. ]
a covenant with hin by sacrifice, Gen.
HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED. 195
the very blood of the covenant; and by the sprinkling of SECT. this blood, the covenant was struck; and by the very same —— act, they were so far acquitted from all conscience of sin, as to have liberty to appear before God in His worship. Until men have entered into covenant, they must lie under the guilt of sin; for guilt can be taken away by no other means than the Divine grace and mercy; and the Divine grace and mercy is no other way certainly to be obtained but by covenant; and until that covenant be sealed, our pardon must, to say the least, be very dubious. But, to apply this to the Christian covenant, will the Doctor say, that no man can be baptized, that hes under the guilt of unpardoned sin? I should rather say with the Scriptures, that we are “baptized for the remission of sins;” and that therefore we enter into covenant with God; because, with- out doing so, our sins cannot be pardoned. And again, that we are under a necessity of renewing this covenant by the Eucharist: because we have committed sin since Baptism ; and there is no way to procure pardon but by covenant ; and we have no way to renew the covenant but by the holy Eucharist: and, therefore, to say, that God enters into cove- nant with none “that lie under the guilt of sin unpardoned,” seems to me a very unwarrantable paradox.
But I proceed to take notice of the next sacrifices, which the Apostle speaks of on this occasion; and they are those offered by Moses, upon the dedication of that covenant, of Exod.xxiv. which he was mediator. The Apostle had observed, ver. 15, that Christ is Mediator of the New Testament by that Blood of His, which he had mentioned in the foregoing verse ; (for as Dr. Whitby well observes, διὰ τοῦτο may more consistently be so rendered than ‘for this cause,’ as our English transla- tion has it ;) and to shew the necessity of blood for the enact- ing a Divine covenant, he observes, ver. 18—22, that the “ old covenant was not dedicated without blood.” “For when Moses,” says St. Paul, “had spoken every precept to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, and sprinkled both the book and all the people, saying, This is the blood of the covenant which the Lord hath enjomed you. More- over he sprinkled with blood both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry. And almost all things are by the
02
CHAP. Il.
Ley. xyi.16,
196 HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
Law purged with blood, and without shedding of blood is no remission.” Now by these sacrifices, the whole body of the Israelites, and the tabernacle, with its furniture, was dedi- cated to the worship of God; that is, both the people and the whole apparatus were admitted, by virtue of these sacrifices, notwithstanding the ineptitude they were under by nature, to the most honourable employment that either inanimate or animate creatures are capable of, that is, the service of God. And the Apostle seems to speak upon a supposition, which I have already hinted more than once; namely, that there is a sort of remission of sin implied in every consecration of things void of sense. For when the Apostle says in the same verse, first “all things are consecrated by blood ;”’ and then, “there is no remission of sin without blood ;” either they are two pro- positions containing the same sense, and so ‘ remission of sin’ in the latteris the same with ‘consecration’ in the former ; or else the Apostle gives it as a reason, why consecration cannot be without blood, that remission of sin can be had only by this means. And this cannot be said but upon supposition, that whatever is consecrated does need a remission of sin ; and this remission can only be a taking off the natural ineptitude before spoken of. For the reader will observe, that the Apostle is here speaking of things, rather than persons; and had, in the words next before, mentioned “ the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry,” as “ sprinkled with blood,” in order to their consecration or remission. It is true, when the same tabernacle was to be “ purged” or con- secrated on every day of expiation, the reason given for this rite of “making an atonement for the holy place” is, “because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel, and because of their transgressions.” And the atonement was to be made for the tabernacle, because “it remained among them in the midst of their uncleanness ;” but when the tabernacle was new made and just now erected, and had never been made use of for religious worship, and so could not have been defiled by the people’s approaching it under their sin and uncleanness ; this reason could not take place. It may be said, that all the materials of the tabernacle, with its orna- ments and utensils, were the oblations of the people; and so needed a purgation, as coming from polluted hands; but this
HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED. 197
cannot be said of the “book” which was written by Moses, eute T. and contained the words of God Himself; which yet, the : Apostle assures us, was sprinkled with blood, as being in- tended to be lodged in the most holy place; and which therefore, according to the sentiments of that age, was not capable of that honour, as being written with and upon materials sordid by nature, until it had first been con- secrated in this solemn manner. And here, I think, we have the certain precise signification of the word καθαρίζειν, so often used in this discourse of the Apostle; and I suppose it very evident, that it does not denote any internal purifica- tion from moral guilt; but only a relief or releasement from that unfitness, which all terrestrial nature is under, from being employed in the service of God; and therefore that remission of sin, implied in this consecration, can strictly import no more, than God’s receiving men and things so far to a Divine use, as to allow public addresses to be made to Him by those men, in and with the things thus separated for the exercise of religion. This may at first seem a thing of too little consequence for the Apostle so much to insist upon, but is really in itself very great: for by this men are put into a capacity of drawing down from God all mercies necessary for them, either in relation to this life, or that which is to come; and this is especially true as to the new covenant ; which, as it was ratified by a Sacrifice infinitely more valuable than those offered by Moses, so the consecration is not only more lasting and durable, so as to need no repetition; but qualifies the Church for a more perfect internal holiness, and for much more weighty rewards. And the Apostle, in the next words, does very much magnify the Christian institu- tions, and the consecration of them by the Blood of Christ, beyond those of the Law. “It was necessary that the pat- ver. 23. terns of things in the heavens” (that is, the Jewish institu-
tions) ‘‘ should be purified” or consecrated “ with these” sacri-
fices of beasts; “but the heavenly,” that is, the evangelical
institutions themselves, “ with better sacrifices than these,”
that is, with the Body and Blood of Christ. Here the Greek
commentators do, by the τὰ ἐπουράνια, which I render ‘ the
heavenly institutions, understand the Sacraments and ser-
vices of the Gospel, or the whole Christian ceconomy and
Ex. xxiv. 4.
CHAP. Il.
Gal. iv. 26. Eph. i. 3.
Eph. ii. 6.
198 HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
polity’. And it was evidently the Apostle’s design to assert, that these were ratified and established by the personal Sacrifice of Christ ; and that from thence all our ministrations and holy offices do receive their validity and efficacy. Nor is it any extraordinary flight in St. Paul to give the title of ‘ heavenly’ to the Christian institutions. He evidently calls the Chris- tian Church, “the Jerusalem above (or from above) which is the mother of us all : and he says, God “ hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings, in the heavenly institutions in Christ ;” and again, “ He hath made us sit together in the heavenly institutions in Christ Jesus.” I make ‘institutions’ the sub- stantive to ἐπουράνια : because I cannot at present think of any English word, that seems more agreeable to the Apostle’s meaning. For I cannot doubt but every impartial reader will own, that either that word, or some other of a like signi- fication, is necessary to express the full meaning of St. Paul; and he who considers, that our Saviour did so familiarly style His Church the “ kingdom of heaven,” cannot think it strange, that one of His Apostles should call the Sacraments and ser- vices of this Church, and the whole system of its doctrine, worship, and government, the heavenly institutions. Dr. Whitby labours to prove, that the heavenly ‘ places’ here (for he makes ‘ places’ the substantive to ἐπουράνια Ὁ) denote those mansions, which Christ is gone to prepare for us; and there is no doubt but that heaven is the sanctum sanctorum, the most holy place in the Christian scheme; and the fundamental institution of the evangelical ceconomy is, that the heavens must receive our High-Priest, until the time of restitution ; and if the most sacred place, where our High-Priest stands officiating and appearing in the presence of God for us, is heaven itself, the heaven of the blessed ; no wonder, that the Apostle calls that state of things, that building which is erected on the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, and which is the only passage or entrance into heaven, by the sublime and honourable title of the τὰ ἐπουράνια, the celestial state, the supernal institutions. In a word, our Saviour is
© [Kal ἡμῶν τὸ πολίτευμά ἐστι ἐν xvi. tom. xii. p. 160. ed. Savile. ] οὐρανοῖς, καίτοι ἐνταῦθα πολιτευόμεθα. Ρ In his notes; but in his para- αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ ἐπουράνια: τουτέστι, τὴν phrase our bodies are the τὰ ἐπου- φιλοσοφίαν τὴν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν." ---. Jo. ράνια. Chrys. in Ep. ad Hebr., cap. ix. Hom.
HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED. 199
“the minister of the whole tabernacle, which the Lord hath SECT. pitched, and not men,” and therefore hath consecrated or reconciled, not the Holy of Holies only, but the entire sanc- tuary, with all its services and appendages. Now the Apostle, to prove that the whole heavenly temple, ver. 24.
of which the Church is a part, was consecrated by the Sacri-
fice of Christ, returns to the sacrifices offered on the day of expiation ; and because the sanctuary and altar could not by
the law of Moses be purged or reconciled but by the high-
priest’s carrying the blood of the sacrifices into the most
holy place; therefore he observes, that “ Christ went into
heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us.”
But now, if Christ had perfected His people by what He did
and suffered on the cross, it will not be easy to say, to what
purpose He now appears in the presence of God for us. If
it be said, that the Sacrifice was not consummated until our High-Priest appeared before God in the true Holy of Holies, I
allow that; but observe, that He had made that appearance many years, before this Epistle was written: and it is certain,
that Christ is now appearing in our behalf, as well as in the
days of the Apostle; and therefore His Church is not yet perfected in such a sense, as not still to want a High-Priest
and Sacrifice; and therefore, when the Apostle says, that
Christ appeared “to put away sin by the Sacrifice of Him- ver. 26. self,” it is certainly most proper, by ‘ sin’ to understand that disability we are under by nature, to appear in the presence
of God, or to make our addresses to Him. ’AOérnows does properly signify an entire ‘ abolition’ and ‘ disannulling,’ (it is rendered by the last English word, in our translation.) Now it Heb.vii.18. is evident, that Christ hath not disannulled sin, either as to
its guilt or dominion, any otherwise than as He has once for
all so effectually dedicated or consecrated His Church, that
the sins of particular men can never wholly unhallow or ex- tinguish it. Sin will still be committed, even by honest and
sincere Christians; and whoever commits sin is not to think,
that he is exempted from the imputation of it by the evange-
lical covenant. It may indeed be truly said, that Christ ap-
peared for the gradual annulling of the guilt and dominion of
sin; but then this end of His appearing will not be fully at-
tained, so long as the world stands; and in order to His ac-
Heb. viii.
CHAP.
ver. 28, 25.
200 HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
complishing of it, it was not only necessary that He should once offer Himself, but that He should perpetually intercede in heaven for His people; and He cannot therefore be said in this sense to have perfected them by offering Himself once for all; He cannot be said to have done that once for all, which He is still domg. I wish therefore Dr. Whitby had explained himself, when in his note on Heb. x. 18, he asserts, that Christ “hath perfectly and fully expiated, and that for ever, them that are sanctified ;” and then argues against the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, by asking, “what ne- cessity of, what virtue can there be in doing that again,” (that is, expiating men,) ‘ which is perfectly and fully done already, and that for ever?” He seems to me to suppose, that Christ, by His Sacrifice on the cross, did actually blot out the sins of all believers, even before they had been repented of, nay, before they were committed. ‘ He was” indeed “ once offered to bear the sins of many,” even as many as should believe in His name; and He certainly did on the cross suffer,
as the only perfect Sacrifice for sin; and it is only through |
the merits of His death, that Christians ever since have as- surance of pardon, upon proper application made. But this is not that, which the Apostle had here in his eye; for he was speaking of the sacrifices offered on the day of expiation, which were not intended to take away the stain of moral guilt, as has been shewed ; and ‘sin’ may here signify, what it evidently does in other parts of these chapters, our natural unfitness for the service or worship of God. And Christ did certainly as a Sacrifice suffer, in order to deliver believers once for all from this miserable state, or ‘to take away,’ or ‘remove’ this unfitness, as the word ἀνενεγκεῖν may be turned.
But I must not here omit the consideration of that vulgar argument against the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, viz. that Christ is said “to have been offered once,’ and that it is expressly denied that “ He was often to offer Himself.” Now it is strange to me, that any man should pretend to argue upon any subject, and yet betray such an excess of ignorance or disingenuousness, as to suppose, that any who assert the Sacrifice of the Eucharist among us do believe or say, that Christ does personally offer Himself in the Eucharist. I am
TE a a a A “οὁὐΥΆῇ͵ “εοὖὴ “πον το ῊῊ ψνΜ.. .ᾳ. θ΄ οὃῷ}ᾺνΡ θ΄.“ ι΄
HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED. 901
apt to think, that even a Papist would scarce own this. We sect. are so far from believing, that Christ literally offers Himself 2 in the Eucharist, that we do not believe Him to be personally there present in His human nature. It is true, several of the ancients have said, that Christ offers Himself in the Eu- charist ; but they certainly meant no more, than that He did so representatively, by His Priests, and under the substituted symbols of Bread and Wine. He offers Himself in the Eu- charist, as He performs the ablution in Baptism, as He in- structs the people in public sermons, viz. by the hands and mouths of His ministers; He there by substitution offers, not His real self or His natural Body and Blood, but the mys- teries or sacramental representations of them; and what incon- sistence there is in doing this daily or hourly, I cannot perceive. I have shewed, that the action, whereby Christ offered Him- self as a Melchisedecian Priest, was performed in the Eu- charist ; and that what He did there was to be done again, He has Himself informed us. But if they will still insist upon it, notwithstanding this command of Christ, that what was done once by Him is never again to be repeated by us; I must further remind them, that if this arguing will hold, then rigsts must leave off to preach and catechise, or any way to instruct the people in principles of Christianity. For we are assured, that “the faith was once delivered to the saints ;” [Jude, ver. and it may as well be argued, that it is presumption for any J man to preach that again, which was once preached by Christ, as that it is a presumption to offer that again, which was once offered ; and I am bold to say, that the commission of Priests to offer the sacramental Body and Blood is as clear to him that inspects it with impartial eyes, as that which He gave them to preach the Gospel. But some think, that this argument receives great addition of strength from the word ἐφάπαξ ; and tell us, that “we are perfected by the offering of the Body of Christ once for 811. And that Christians are consecrated once for all, and that too by the offering made personally by Christ, I have before shewed; but yet that ἐφάπαξ does there, or elsewhere, signify “ once for all,” Iam yet to learn; nay, it is certain, it signifies ‘all at once,’ or ‘ at one same time.’ So Christ was seen of above five hundred brethren, ἐφάπαξ, not ‘once for all, but ‘all at once,’ or
ΟΠ: 1. 1Cor. χυ. θ. Heb. vii. 27.
Heb. ix. AA, 12:
Rom. vi. 10.
202
-HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
‘at one and the same time;’ and so Christ offered “ for His own” [Apostles] “ and for the people,” ἐφάπαξ, “ all at once,’ or ‘at the same time.’ So “Christ being made an High-Priest, and having obtained eternal redemption for us,” did ἐφάπαξ, “at the same time, enter into heaven,” (for that is the true series of those words.) Again, “in that Christ died, He died at the same time to sin.” Jam not sensible that the word is elsewhere used in the New Testament ; and it does not ap- pear, that there is any necessity of ever understanding it as if it signified ‘once for all ;’ but that it must sometimes signify ‘all at once,’ is evidentfrom the texts here cited, viz. 1 Cor. xv.6. Though neither have we any reason to apprehend any hurt from the word as commonly understood ; but this I have added, to shew upon how very loose a bottom they build, who would draw any conclusion in prejudice of the Eucharistical Sacrifice from this word ἐφάπαξ. And this is a full answer to the learned Dr. Whitby’s first argument 4 against the Chris- tian Sacrifice, in his note on Heb. x. 18, viz. “ Christ cannot offer Himself, but He must suffer ;’ He could suffer but once, therefore He could offer but once; as if because Christ does not personally offer His Body and Blood in the Eucharist, therefore they cannot be offered there at all. And when the same Doctor argues, that the Eucharist is either a bloody Sacrifice, or else no remission of sin can be obtained by it; he is already answered ; for we assert no such remission of sin in the Eucharist, as the Apostle there means ; no release from our disability to offer our devotions to God. We must be dis- charged from this disability, before we are allowed to appear at the Lord’s Table; and the whole Church was discharged from it at once, by the personal Sacrifice of Christ. It is true, these arguments were by the Doctor aimed against the Sacri-
a [From these, and many other
they dare not say that Christ suffers in passages of this Epistle, the Sacrifice of
the mass, neither can they say that
the mass declared by the Trent coun- cil, Sess. 22. Can. 2, 8, to be a true and proper propitiatory- sacrifice for sins, is utterly overthrown. For, first, from these words of the Apostle, ‘It was not needful that He should offer Him- self often, for then must He have often suffered,’ chap. ix. 24—26, it is very evident that Christ cannot offer Him- self, but He must suffer. Since then
Christ offers Himself there. Secondly, from those words, ‘ Without shedding of blood there is no remission,’ chap. ix. 22, it follows, either that the Sacri- fice of the mass must be a bloody sa- crifice, and so Christ’s Blood must be as often shed as He is offered in the mass, or else that it obtaineth no re- mission of sin.’’— Whitby in loco. }
HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED. 203
fice of the mass; and how full of proof they may be against the Popish sacrifice, Iam not concerned to say; nor indeed do I pretend to know, how the modern doctors of the Church of Rome have modified their notions upon this subject; but I know very well the charity of our adversaries here at home, and that they do upon all occasions declare us Papists in this point; and I was apprehensive, that what Dr. Whitby has written in confutation of the Sacrifice of the Church of Rome in so famous a book, as his Paraphrase and Commentary on the New Testament, might by unwary readers be applied to the primitive Sacrifice, which I am now defending ; and there- fore I have said thus much by way of prevention.
The Apostle in the beginning of the tenth chapter, has his eye still fixed upon the sacrifices offered on the day of
SECT. 1.
expiation. And that I may not too much trespass on my Lev. xvi.
reader’s patience, I will, instead of a long disquisition, which it were easy to make on this occasion, only present him with a paraphrase on the four first verses, with some brief reflections.
“The Law having” only “a” faint previous “ shadow of the good things to come,” that is, of Christ’s Body and Blood, of which He was the High-Priest’, in those sacrifices offered on the day of expiation, which were not intended to be the “very image” according to the life of the things by them represented, as the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is; “can never by those sacrifices, which they [the high-priests] offer year by year, consecrate for ever those that come,” or draw nigh to God, by them, or with them.
In making the “very image” to be the Eucharist, I have the authority of many of the ancients: that τελειοῦν pro- perly signifies to consecrate, I have before proved. Dr. Whitby agrees with me in construing εἰς τὸ διηνεκὲς with τελειοῦν ὃ.
“ For then,” that is, if they had been able for ever to con- secrate those who made use of them, “would they not have ceased to be offered?” Yes, certainly, ‘ because the cultors
¥ See my explication of chap. ix. 11. τὸ διηνεκὲς, ‘expiate sins for ever;’ or
5 (That which he (St. Paul) here 580 as that they, who were once purged denies to the legal sacrifices, must be by them, ‘should have no more con- also this, that they could τελειῶσαι εἰς science of sin.’’’ ]
chap. x. 1.
ver. 2.
CHAP. Il.
Lev. x. 3.
chap. ix. 9.
ver. 3.
ver. 4.
204 HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
once purged,” or consecrated, would have no more [such] “conscience for sin,’ as to make them sensible of the necessity of being consecrated again the next year.
As the προσερχόμενοι may denote the priests themselves, because they are peculiarly said “to draw near to God,” so it is very highly probable, that the λατρεύοντες can be no other than they, if it be considered, that τὸν λατρεύοντα does certainly characterize the high-priest. I suppose the Apostle first treats of the consecration of the priests, and afterwards of the people, in this chapter. And I suppose there is a very apparent reason, why the sacrifices on the day of expiation would have ceased, if they could have had a perpetual per- manent effect ; and that is, because they were only intended as lustrative or preparative sacrifices; and if they could once for all have taken off men’s natural ineptitude and dis- ability for Divine worship, there would have been no further occasion for the use of them; but this reason does not at all affect the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, for that is not intended as an initiative or lustrative sacrifice. Christ did once for all personally offer His Body and Blood, for the perpetual consecration, lustration, or initiation of His whole Church ; and this is therefore never to be offered again; but then it does not follow, that the Eucharist may not be a Sacri- fice for other mtents and purposes, though not for this.
“ But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year,” by the high-priest.
And indeed it appears, that the high-priest was obliged to make atonement for his own sins on this day, whether he had committed any sin, or contracted any legal unclean- ness in the foregoing year, or not; and the reason is very obvious, upon the supposition so often mentioned; viz. that these sacrifices were not intended to take away wholly the guilt of disobedience; but to remove that unfitness for the worship of God, which proceeded from natural corruption, as well as from the known transgressions of the Divme law, [but that this unfitness could be removed only for one year’s time, that is, till the next day of expiation. |
“For it is not possible, that the blood of bulls and of goats should for ever take away sin;” that is, the incapacity of men to appear in the presence of God to worship Him.
HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED. 205
I add “for ever” from the first verse, where the Apostle SECT. is his own interpreter; and I suppose there can be no ——— doubt, but that the sacrifices offered on the day of expiation being of Divine appointment were effectual to the ends for which they were designed; but that being designed only to relieve men from their ineptitude to Divine worship for one year, they could not therefore do it once for all, as the Sacrifice of Christ Jesus hath.
The Apostle proceeds, from verse the fifth to the end of ver. 5—9. the ninth, to prove from the words of David, that God did Ps.x1.6—s. very little esteem the sacrifices and offerings of the Law, in comparison of the Body of Christ, Which was in due time to be offered to Him. It is not indeed certain from the words of the psalm, that David did particularly mean the sacrifices on the day of expiation. ‘Sacrifices and offer- ings” are general words, but yet they are restrained by the mentioning of “ burnt-offerings, and sacrifices for sin.” And it is observable, that all the solemn sacrifices appointed for the day of expiation, were either burnt-offerings or sacri- fices for sin. Aaron is ordered on this day to “come into Lev. xvi. 8. the holy place, with a bullock for a sin-offerimg, and a ram for a burnt-offering,” and with these he was to “make ver. 6. atonement for himself and his house;’’ and further he was to “take of the children of Israel two kids of the goats for a sin-offering, and a ram for a burnt-offering ;” and these were the only sacrifices peculiar to that day. And though David gives us no other hint, whereby we can learn, that he meant these sacrifices; yet the Apostle, who wrote by the same Spirit, to prove that the blood of bulls and goats offered on this day (for of those he was speaking) could not for ever ver. 4. take away sin, in the sense so often before mentioned, alleges these words of the psalm; and I suppose therefore, that St.
Paul is clear in this point; and that he looked upon it as a certain truth, that the Sacrifice offered by Christ Jesus in person was to do that for ever, which the Levitical sacrifices could only do from year to year. I have before observed, that several of the ancients did believe, that Christ did fulfil this prophecy of David in the original Eucharist, where He did spiritually, intentionally, and mystically, offer His own
CHAP. Il.
206 HEB. 1x. AND X. CONSIDERED.
Body to God, under the symbols and pledges of Bread and
——— Wine, which He had consecrated for this purpose; but the
reader is not from thence to infer, that we do in our Eucha- rists offer the Sacramental Body and Blood, for the re- consecrating the Church and its ministrations, or to make a new satisfaction for the sins of the world; these were the first ends our Saviour had in view in the first oblation, and these were then obtained by Him once for all. I have before observed, and do now seasonably remind my reader, that as the first Passover was not sacrificed precisely for the same ends, that the future Passovers were offered; so neither did our Saviour in the original Eucharist present His Body and Blood to the Father altogether for the same purposes that we are now to do it. We offer it as a memorial, or commemorative sacrifice: our Saviour did not so. For the first oblation was then im fieri, and in present; and what is present cannot properly be said to be commemorated. We offer it for the application of the merits of the first and grand oblation; whereas our Saviour offered His Body to be a perpetual stock of those merits, which we by our Eucharists are from time to time to draw from that inexhaustible treasure; and to say no more, our Saviour in and by the first Eucharist, and His crucifixion or mactation consequent upon that Eucharist, offered an initiatory Sacrifice, whereby He for ever enabled and qualified His Church, without any other lustrative rites or oblations, to make the nearest approaches to God, and especially to continue this Sacrifice; not for the reconsecrating either Priest or people, but for the acknowledging the consecration once for all performed, and all other benefits of His death; and for the perpetual application of the merits thereof to ourselves. I must further observe, that the words “I come to do Thy will,” are not a full rendition of the Greek or Hebrew. It has sufficiently been proved, as I have said, by Dr. Hickes, that the Greek ποιεῖν and the Hebrew awy when applied to sacrifice, do signify to ‘offer :’ and it is also evident that the Greek θέλημα and the Hebrew ΠΣ do signify something ‘peculiarly acceptable and delightful. It is a common observation that θέλειν signifies ‘to take pleasure’
HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED. 207
in any thing, and by parity of reason θέλημα denotes ‘the thing with which one is pleased,’ or which is ‘in a peculiar manner desired, or pleasing’ to another. The Hebrew word is at other places rendered δεκτὸν, ‘acceptable, or singularly pleasing ; see LXX. Levit. 1. 4; xxu. 19; Deut. xxxiii. 23; Isa. lxi. 2; lx. 7: so that mstead of “1 come to do Thy will,” I crave leave to say, “I come to offer the acceptable thing or Sacrifice, that is, My Body.” I have made this digression, not so much from any advantage to the cause which I am pleading, as to make this text more clear than it is in our modern translations ; and accordingly the tenth verse is thus to be rendered, “In, or by which acceptable [Sacrifice] we have been consecrated, we [I say, have been consecrated] through the offering of the Body of Christ, all at once.” I apprehend that the Apostle speaks here of our Saviour’s consecrating His Apostles by the oblation of Himself. It is expressed in the Greek in the preeterperfect tense ἡγιασ- μένοι ἐσμὲν; and when he says ‘we,’ it is most proper to understand those of the apostolical order, and their successors for ever. It has before been observed, that ἐφάπαξ signifies ‘all at once,’ or ‘at one and the same time; and this seems best to fit the sense here; for ἐφάπαξ does most probably affect the verb. It is an adverb, and therefore, according to the common rules of construction, cannot be put with the substantive προσφορὰ ; and the Apostles and whole Christian hierarchy were consecrated or enabled to be ministers of the New Testament all at once, by the personal oblation of Christ ; though if it be said, they were consecrated ‘ once,’ or ‘once for all, neither does that much alter the sense, but only somewhat obscures it. For it is to be considered, that the office of Priesthood itself was consecrated or founded in the persons of the Apostles; and as the office itself was here founded, so was that part or branch of it, whereby the Apostles and their successors were empowered to adopt others into a partnership of that office; and the ordination or consecration of particular men to the episcopal office is only an exercise of that power, which was for ever con- ferred upon the apostolical college, by the first oblation performed by Christ Himself. It is not the founding of a new dignity, or office; but admitting one into that which
SECT. 1
CHAP. Il.
ver. 11.
ver. 14.
John xvii. 19.
ver. 11.
Lev. xiv. 20. 90; ole
208 HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
was erected, and confirmed once for all by our great High- Priest*.
And having thus far spoke of the Christian Priesthood, he now proceeds to shew the same of all that belong to the Christian Church, whom he calls the ἁγιαζόμενοι, such as are, by becoming members of His Body, ‘ purged,’ ‘ sanctified,’ as it is in our translation, that is, released from their natural incapacity of offering their devotions to God; for whereas he before spake in the preterperfect tense, as having an eye particularly to the Apostles, who were in the first place in- vested with this privilege in a very eminent manner, and to whom He had beforehand given a promise of it, as was before observed ; he now descends to speak of all, who had hitherto joined themselves to that Church which He had purchased with His own Blood, and become, by this means, a people near to God. The Apostle, to introduce what he was to say on this head, takes notice, that “every high-priest [among the Jews] stood on every day [of expiation] ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sin’ all at once. I translate the Greek “ every high- priest,” because not only the Syriac and Ethiopic versions have it, but also Theodoret, and St. Cyril of Alexandria so read it, and seven MSS. and among these the Alexandrian. And indeed these were the only sacrifices for sin often of- fered, of which the Apostle could say, that they did not take away sin; for of those other sin-offerings occasionally to be made, it is expressly said of them that bring them to be offered, that their sins “ shall be forgiventhem.” So that it is, I suppose, clear, that the words were meant of the sacri-
t The reader will pardon me, if I _ be ‘ offerers’ or ‘ sacrificers.’ I cannot p ᾿
offer a conjecture, which I shall build nothing upon, but barely propose to his consideration. The words οἱ διὰ προσ- φορᾶς τοῦ σώματος τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ seem to me capable of this rendition, ‘“we, who are employed, or are conver- sant in the offering of the Body of Jesus Christ.”” For ‘ we’ is implied in ἐσμὲν, and the particle οἱ with a preposition usually signifies office, employment, or the like ; so of kat’ ἀγορὰν, ‘ pleaders,’ or ‘ whose employment is in courts of ju- dicature ; οἱ ἀπὸ βήματος, " orators,’ or ‘they whose business is in the pulpit ;’ and by analogy of διὰ προσφορᾶς should
doubt but of was written with the Apo- stle’s own hand; for it is unaccount- able how a word, which in the general opinion rather clouds the sense than otherwise, should ever be added by any other hand; and it is in all MSS. ex- cepting six or seven. Nor is it any wonder, that transcribers should leave out what they thought redundant, or did not understand. If I had any evidence that the preposition διὰ was ever so used, as it is certain several others are, I should think this a very considerable evidence, that St. Paul spoke of all the Apostles as sacrificing Priests.
HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED. 209
fices on the day of expiation, so often before mentioned ; and SECT. therefore I need give no other reason, why I turn καθ᾽ ἡμέραν oo ‘on every day’ of expiation, as before. “ But this Man eee [Jesus] after He had offered one Sacrifice for sin for ever,”
stood no longer ministering, or offering Sacrifice ; but “ sat
down on the right hand of God, from henceforth expecting,
until His enemies be made His footstool; for He hath by
ene offering consecrated for ever all that are sanctified” by Baptism. The Apostle is so far from intending to say, that
all Christian people are so perfected by the one oblation, that
by that oblation the practice and guilt of moral sin was abo-
lished in them ; that he says in effect the direct contrary:
for he gives us to understand, that Christ is still expecting,
until His enemies be made His footstool. And sin is none
of the most inconsiderable of these enemies. And it is evi-
dent, that what is expected is not yet accomplished: and
it is certain in fact, that even good Christians are still obliged
often and with great difficulty to strive with the guilt and
power of sin; and therefore the victory over sin in this sense
was not achieved all at once, but by degrees; and it will
never be finished or completed by particular men, while
they are in this state, where the flesh lusteth against the
spirit ; nor by the whole Church, until death and Satan are at
the same time entirely and finally subdued ; and Dr. Whitby,
as if he had here been conscious of the defect of his hypo-
thesis, mentions in his paraphrase “Satan, Antichrist, and death,” as enemies yet to be conquered; but omits sin, as
being sensible, that the mention of it in the sense in [which]
he all along takes it would confute his whole comment on
this place: and yet it is certain to a demonstration, that sin cannot be said to be totally vanquished until the devil be wholly and finally disarmed; and that therefore Christ did
not so perfect His people by the one oblation, as once for all
to take away the guilt and power of sin; and that therefore
my interpretation stands good ; viz. that He hath, by offering Himself, qualified His sincere servants for the perpetual wor-
ship of God, by which means they are gradually to attain a
final and total conquest. The Apostle proves this from the
words of the Prophet Jeremiah, where God promises to put chap. xxxi.
“ His laws in the people’s hearts, and to write them in their ~ JOHNSON, Ρ
CHAP: Il.
Jer. XXxi, 35.
ver. 18,
210 HEB, IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
minds ;”” He does not mean, He would give them a sinless perfection, or exempt them from the power of temptations ; but that He would dispose their minds to the worship and service of Himself, and “ that He would remember their sins and iniquities no more.” In which words, no rational man can believe, that God debarred Himself from imputing sin to them, if they were guilty of it; or from punishing them either in this life, or the next, or both, if they continued im- penitent in it; but what He promises is, that as the people should have pious inclinations to the public worship of Him ; so He would not, for the future, remember their sins, as He had now done, by causing them to be transported into a remote country, where they wanted the convenience and op- portunity of public worship. For Jeremiah prophesied under the Babylonish captivity ; and God promises that He would never treat His redeemed people again in the same manner. And He so speaks, as that the words may be better and more properly applied to the Christian Church, to which God had undoubtedly an eye in this prophecy, than to the Jewish; and what He promises to the Christian Church is, that though much sin and weakness was to remain in particular members, yet this sin and weakness should not be so remembered by God, as that He would therefore annul their Sacraments ; or reject, or refuse His gracious presence to their public as-
semblies. If any thing more be contained in this promise, it
is this, that the sins of the whole Christian Church shall never so far provoke God, as to make Him proceed to an utter ex- cision of it, or to cause the Church to be no more. And in- deed these words seem so to be explained, by those which immediately follow. ‘Thus saith the Lord, that giveth the sun for a light by day, and the ordinances of the moon and stars for a ight by might — If these ordinances pass from before Me, saith the Lord, then the seed of Israel shall also cease from being a nation from before Me, saith the Lord, for ever.” In which words the Christian Church has a promise of perpetual duration unto the end of the world: and this is indeed implied in her being consecrated once for ever. And now we are come to those words, which seem to some to contain an unanswerable objection against the Sacrifice of the Eucharist, viz. “ where remission of these [sins and iniqui-
| | | | ᾿ } } {
HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED. 211
ties] is, there is no more sacrifice for sin.” But I appre- SECT. hend, my judicious reader can by this time see no manner of a
: : : : : Ξ Heb. x. 18, objection or difficulty in them ; or if there be any, it may be particu- removed by answering these three questions, viz. 1. What ee oe is meant by sins? 2. What by remission? 8. What by of- fering for sin?
1. What is meant by sins? And the answer is, that actual known transgression of the moral or positive law, whereby we are obnoxious to guilt in this world and punishment in the next, cannot be meant by the word ‘sin’ in this context, nor even in these very words: for the sins here mentioned are such as are not remembered, or imputed to Christians ; whereas it is certain, that all immoral actions are imputed to Christians, as well as others. Nay, the sins here spoken of are such as were actually remitted at the offering of the grand Sacrifice; whereas the known actual sins of Christians are not forgiven, until they are repented of. Nor does the addition of the word ‘iniquities’ alter the case; for it has been shewed, that jy, commonly rendered by the LXX ἀνομία, signifies no more than ΠΝ ΏΠΙ, which is generally ren- dered as here, ἁμαρτία. And that both these words do fre- quently signify no more than that impurity, which is either inherent in the nature of all sublunary beings, or other- wise contracted; whereby they are unfit for the service or worship of God.
2. What is meant by remission of sins? And it is evident that remission of sins is either the same with being ‘ conse- crated,’ or purged, ver. 14, or the immediate and necessary effect of it: for the Apostle produces these words of the Prophet Jeremiah to prove, that “Christ, by one offering, consecrated them that are purged, or cleansed.” For he presently adds, “ whereof the Holy Ghost is witness ;” and then cites the words of the prophet: so that it is evident, that the remission here spoken of was actually passed, by and upon our Saviour’s offering Himself. And therefore it can- not import absolution from the guilt and punishment of known actual sin, because this cannot be passed, until the sin has been committed and repented of; the remission, of which the Apostle speaks, was obtained and granted once for all, and never to be repeated; whereas the remission of guilt
P2
CHAP. 1
212 HER. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
and punishment for particular Christians is to be obtained and granted occasionally from time to time, by a proper application of the merits of the death of Christ.
3. What is meant by an offering for sin? And it is evident from what has been before discoursed, that it must be such an offering (I mean as to its ends and design) as was offered by Moses for the dedication or ratification of the covenant between God and the Israelites; or upon his erectmg and consecrating the tabernacle and the Jewish ceconomy. It must be a Sacrifice intended for the qualifying men to attend and assist in the worship of God, as the ashes of the red heifer did. It must be a Sacrifice, or offering designed for the enabling men to continue the public worship and service of God, notwithstanding such defilements and corruptions as are necessarily incident to human nature; as the sacrifices offered on the day of expiation were; only more perfect than all of them joined together; for it did that all at once, which all these lustrative rites could not do. It gave all Christian people a right for ever after to join together to worship God: it formed them into a perpetual body or society of Priests and people, for performing a Divine and spiritual service, so that they need no new sacrifice to reconsecrate them: so that, in a word, ‘remitting sin’ in the eighteenth verse, and ‘purging’ and ‘consecrating’ in the fourteenth verse, and ‘taking away sin’ in the fourth verse, and ‘consecrating as pertaining to conscience,’ ch. ix. 9, are all phrases signifying in effect the same thing. And since it is evident, that conse- crating signifies here, and in the Levitical Law, dedicating to the service of God by initiative sacrifices and rites; and that ‘taking away sin’ has the same signification, and imports the purging men and things from these defilements, which render them unfit for the service of Almighty God: there- fore ‘remission of sin’ here is to be taken in the same sense; and men that are sensible of this privilege are said to be purged ‘as to their conscience ;’ because they are not under such inward checks as the Jews must be, when they presumed to approach the sanctuary under such defilements, as by the tenor of their Law made them, until they had reconsecrated themselves, incapable of appearing before the Divine Majesty in the tabernacle, or temple. As the effects of Christ’s death
HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED. 913
are various; so are the manner and seasons of dispersing or conferring those effects on those for whom they were in- tended. The pardon of actions and habits morally sinful in believers is, and ever shall be, administered to penitents as occasion requires ; and the same may be said of that “ grace to help in time of need,” which Christ purchased for His people. There are other effects of His death, which were not only purchased by the one offermg Himself; but were like- wise all at once and for ever actually conferred upon His Church, as liberty from the yoke of the Jewish Law, and a free access to God to make our wants and our joys known unto Him. It is true, the charter of pardon upon repentance, and of all necessary yrace, were sealed at and by His death ; but these blessings could not be actually applied then to all that were hereafter to have occasion for them; because they were conditional, and could not be bestowed until these con- ditions were performed ; nay, they cannot now be applied to every single Christian all at once; especially remission of actual known guilt cannot be thus applied, before that guilt is contracted, and proper means are used for the removing of it. But freedom from the yoke of the Jewish Law was abso- lute and without any restraint, because the very force and authority of it was taken away by Christ’s death; and so was the liberty which Christ procured for His whole Church, and every member of it in their proper stations, to make their addresses to God; and these privileges are now, and have in all former ages, been applied to Christians once for all, viz. at their Baptism. And so by this time my reader will conclude with me, that the sense of this eighteenth verse is, that “ where there is” such “remission of sins and iniquities,” that 15, of such defilements, as before Christ’s coming made men incapable of presenting themselves in the place of public worship, there is no further occasion of such “ offermg for sin,” as the Apostle had been speaking of; or “there is no longer” (that is the true import of οὐκ ἔτι) such “ an offering for sin,” as was prescribed on the day of expiation, for recon- ciling priests, people, and the tabernacle itself, for the service of the ensuing year: for it is evident, that the Apostle in this place considers the Sacrifice of Christ only, as such an offer- ing for sin, as was initiative, lustrative, or consecrative ; and
SECT ne
CHAP. Il.
214 HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
not as such a Sacrifice for sin as wiped off all guilt and ob- noxiousness to punishment, when applied in a proper manner. St. Paul does frequently in other places speak of the Sacrifice offered by Christ in person, as a price and ransom for the guilt and punishment of all sms committed by believers; but here he treats of it with another view. And we are to re- member, that he was writing to the Hebrews, to whom these words and phrases, in the several significations above men- tioned, were known and familiar; and I persuade myself, that the greatest difficulty I labour under in writing upon this subject is, that my readers of all sorts are such as have not been used to take these words and phrases in such a sense, as the Apostle did first intend them. And yet I am per- suaded, that if the most learned amongst our adversaries will please to apply the word τελειοῦν to any other fixed and de- terminate sense than that which I have above given to it ; they will themselves be soon convinced, that it is not recon- cileable to, or consistent with, the Apostle’s arguings in this context; for this word imports the same thing with the phrase of ‘ taking away sin, as the reader will find, by com- paring the first and fourth verses of the tenth chaper. And that our Saviour did, by His Sacrifice on the cross, actually take away sin in any other meaning than that which I have offered, will be very hard for them to prove, and, I humbly conceive, impossible.
But if our adversaries do persist in that sense of ‘taking away sin,’ and ‘remitting of sin,’ which these phrases bear in common discourse, then neither they nor we can say that “there remains no more sacrifice or offering for sin;” or if any of our adversaries will be so hardy as to affirm it, then they must give me leave to say, that they make the condition of the lapsing Christian to be the same with that of an apos- tate. For the Apostle, in the twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh verses of the tenth chapter, to shew the miserable and des- perate condition of them who ‘sin wilfully’ after Baptism, that is, who renounce Christianity, says of them, that “there re- mains no sacrifice for sin, but a certain fearful looking for of judgment.” The Apostle here evidently speaks upon this sup- position, viz. that there can be no forgiveness without a sacri- fice; and it is this that makes the case of the apostates with-
HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED. 215
out redress or remedy. He is unpardonable, because there remains no sacrifice for his sin. But now, if there be no longer a sacrifice for the sins of offending Christians, how does their condition differ from that of apostates ? And there- fore if our adversaries will, by remission of sin, understand taking off totally and finally the guilt and punishment, they as well as we must be obliged to read the eighteenth verse inter- rogatively, viz. “ Now where remission of these is, is there not yet an offering for sin?” Yes, undoubtedly, for there is no remission without sacrifice; and what makes the state of apostates deplorable is this, that they have committed sin, and have no sacrifice with which to expiate it; and therefore according to the Apostle’s own reasoning, where there is re- mission of sin, there must be yet an offering for sin; upon supposition, that by sin is meant known and actual trans- gression, according to our adversaries’ notions. If it be said, that there remains indeed a Sacrifice for believers that “ have been overtaken in a fault,” but no other sacrifice except that offered by Christ Jesus: so say we too, for we believe that the Sacrifice offered by the Church is no other than that offered by Christ, (though for ends somewhat different ;) if it be said that this Sacrifice was once offered by Christ, but must be offered no more, that is the very point in dispute between us. That it was once offered by Christ is confessed on all hands; that it is to be offered no more, is the inference drawn by our adversaries, which we cannot allow. The Apo- stle nowhere says, that the Body and Blood of Christ is no more to be offered. All that can be proved from his discourse is, that it cannot be offered as an initiatory or consecratory sacrifice ; and there is this manifest difference in the grand Sacrifice considered as initiatory, and considered as having a power for making satisfaction for known sin ; that the bene- fits of It, as initiatory, were conferred once for all upon the Church, and by consequence on every member of it; but the benefits thereof, as It has a power of absolving men from known actual sin, were not so bestowed actually all at once, but gradually and occasionally, as has before been observed ; and this shews the Apostle’s meaning, when he says that there remains no more sacrifice for the apostate, who had forsaken the Christian assemblies, and so deserted the Church;
SECT. I.
216 HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
CHAP. namely, that there is no reconsecrative Sacrifice under the E Gospel, whereby either the Church, or any member of it, can be anew separated to the service of God; and he therefore that has thus shut himself out of the Church, of which he was once a member, can never be re-admitted. By renounc- ing Christ he has lost the benefit, and forfeited the privilege purchased by the first and principal oblation ; and so cannot by virtue of that be restored to Christian communion ; and there remains no other such initiatory Sacrifice; and there- fore the apostate remains without hope of any possible recon- secration to the service of God. He is so far from beg in a capacity to obtain forgiveness of sin, that he is driven and ejected from the presence of God, and not permitted to join that one body of men, the Church, among whom only this privilege of having sins pardoned upon repentance does re- side. And if the lapsing Christian, as well as the apostate, is destitute of a reconsecratory Sacrifice, there remains no such oblation, either for the one or the other: but the laps- ing Christian wants no such reconsecratory Sacrifice, though he for a time be suspended or excluded from the communion of the Church; because when that suspension is taken off, he remains fully instated in the privilege of bemg admitted to the Christian worship, whereby his pardon may be perfected. And it is to be observed, that the censure of excommunication was never designed by our Saviour, or His Apostles, to be an exclusion from the Church totally and finally; but only a depriving men of the privileges and benefits of communion for a time, in order to reduce them to their duty. If excom- munication be perpetual, it is the obstmacy of the offender that makes it so, and not the law of Christ or His Church. On the other side, the apostate, as has been shewed, can be never the better for the consecration, which was procured and passed at the oblation of the principal Sacrifice; and by renouncing this Sacrifice, he for ever disables himself from receiving the benefit of It again; and so he remains incurable. But if both the lapsing Christian and the apos- tate do want a sacrifice for the expiation of moral guilt, and yet no sacrifice remains for either of them; then the case of both must be equally desperate, and without remedy ; which God forbid. If therefore by ‘offering for sin’ in the
HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED. 91
eighteenth verse, my reader understand the same thing, that he does by ‘sacrifice for sin’ in the twenty-sixth verse; and in both places take it for an initiatory consecratory oblation, the sense runs clear; and it is owned, that neither the baptized Christian persevering in his profession, has any occasion for such a sacrifice; nor can he that is a renegade or revolter from Christianity receive any advantage from such sacrifice; and so it may be said im relation to both, that “there is yet no longer such sacrifice or offering for sins,” and this is the sense which I prefer. But if my reader will, by a sacrifice for sin, understand a sacrifice that may be satisfactory for the removing guilt and punishment ; then he must give me leave to conclude, that the eighteenth verse is to be read interrogatively, and that that interrogation is to be resolved into an affirmation; q. d. where “‘ remission of sins is, there is yet an offering for sin;” or if he do not allow this, he must consider, whether it be possible to dis- cover any difference between the lapsmg Christian and the apostate. When both are equally destitute of a sacrifice, and without a sacrifice there can be no expiation of guilt; and if it were the Apostle’s intention to say, “there is yet a sacri- fice ;” then the conclusion of St. Paul’s discourse is directly contrary to that, which our adversaries would have it*. I leave them to choose which they please; and if they choose the last, but add, that though there be a sacrifice, yet that it is not to be re-offered; I answer, no such consequence can be drawn from any thing, which the Apostle says in these chapters; nay, I apprehend, he says, what will in effect be a proof of the contrary, even in this Epistle, as we shall here- after see. In the mean time, I submit it to the judgment of my learned reader to determine, whether this context, which is commonly thought to favour the cause of our adversaries, more than any other in the whole Bible, be not
u The necessity of a sacrifice to be offered for a lapsing Christian may grate hard upon the ears of some Pro- testants. But the judgment of St. Cyprian is of more weight with me than a thousand modern commentators. He* complains of some lapsing Chris- tians, that they had presumed to speak
peace to themselves ‘ before their sins were expiated, before confession of their crime had been made, before their conscience had been cleansed by Sacri- fice and the hand of the Priest, before the wrath of an angry, threatening God had been pacified.’ [2nd Ed. ]
wre. ps tists
SECT. I.
CHAP. I.
That the perfecting mentioned Heb. x. is not exclu- sive of farther perfecting.
218 HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
rather for us, than against us; for here we are instructed in this great truth, that our Saviour by His first Sacrifice con- secrated His Apostles, and His whole Church, for some spe- cial Divine services; if the oblation of Christ’s Body be not also expressly mentioned as one of these services. However, that is in effect already proved, which I promised to shew
2. In the second place, viz. that the perfecting, and sanctifying, and sacrifice for sin, meant by the Apostle, are not exclusive of other perfecting, and sanctifying, and sacrifice for sin; this, I say, is already proved; for the per- fecting here meant is only consecrating the whole Church, especially the Priests, to the service of God. The sanctifying here intended imports no more, than freeing men and things from the disability they are under by nature, or otherwise, for the service of God; and by the sacrifice for sin is here meant such a sacrifice as effected this consecration or dedi- cation. For if the consecratory, or initiatory sacrifices offered by Moses, or the reconsecratory oblations made on the day of expiation, had been never so perfect in their kind; though they had once for all effectually attained their end, and con- ferred a perpetual indelible consecration on priests, and people, and tabernacle; yet it does by no means follow, that they were therefore to offer no other sacrifices, either for pardon of sin, or for any other ends. The Hebrews, to whom St. Paul wrote this Epistle, could not be so ignorant, as to draw any such conclusion from this discourse; they well knew, and so may we too, that the sacrifices offered by Moses, and the red heifer, and the sacrifices on the day of expiation, were not intended by God to excuse or free men from the obligation of offering other sacrifices: nay, they were sensible, that the main end and intention of the sacrifices of Moses, and [those] on the day of expiation, was to put men into a condition and capacity to offer other sacrifices and devotions appointed by the Law of Moses. And by parity of reason, the consecrative or initiative power of the first Sacrifice offered by Christ in person is so far from proving, that no sacrifice is for the future to be offered, that it rather proves the direct contrary; for there had been no occasion for such initiatory, conse- cratory Sacrifice, if it had not been in order to prepare
HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED. 219
and qualify the Church for some very solemn and eximious SECT. service; and since it does appear from other evidence, if : not from these chapters, that our blessed Saviour did before and by His death offer, and for ever institute the most Divine and beneficial Sacrifice that was ever presented to God by mere men; and did, by this first oblation and institution, intend to consecrate His Priests and people (as appears from this chapter) as to all other religious offices, so especially to that which was most excellent; therefore the most proper conclusion from these things put together is, that this most solemn service and Sacrifice is for ever to be offered and observed by us: is for ever to be cele- brated by Priests, clergy, and people in their several stations, with a full assurance, that the pollutions of men can never defile or invalidate a Sacrifice, that receives its power and sanction from the most precious Blood of the Son of God. And thus it appears, that the consequence of this consecration, which the Church of Christ acquires by the first oblation of the grand Sacrifice, is this; that all the members of this Church have a certain, infallible remedy against the guilt of all actual sin; that is, they have a right of access to God in the public assembly; and by virtue of the holy offices there performed, and especially of the Sacri- fice of the Eucharist there offered, they have an application of the merits of Christ’s death made to them, for the taking away that obnoxiousness to punishment which they had in- curred; and therefore the full effect and consequence of our being consecrated, perfected, or admitted to the service and worship of God once for all, is this; that we are by this means made capable of pardon upon repentance, and of all the blessings purchased by Christ, upon condition that we apply ourselves to God in the method appointed by Him. I proceed therefore,
Thirdly, to shew further what reason we have to believe, st. Paul that the Apostle had an eye to the Eucharistical oblation, #2‘ the
Eucharisti- even in these very chapters. The reason I have to think so cal Sain is taken from the inference, which he draws from the fore- 19—23. going discourse : for having said, “there remains yet no sacri-
fice or offering for sin,” meaning such initiatory sacrifice or
offermg as Moses made upon the ratification of the old cove-
CHAP. Il.
chap. ix. 11.
220 HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
nant, and the dedication of the tabernacle, or reconsecratory sacrifices, as were enjoined on the day of expiation; and having shewed them just before, what a more perfect con- secration to the service of God they had obtained through the personal Sacrifice, he first concludes, that they ought to make use of this privilege, in “ drawing near to the Holies,” by the way that Christ had ‘ dedicated’ for them, that is, the Church, (which was the tabernacle through which He entered into heaven ;) and it is certain that we must follow the way which Christ did first tread out for us. This is the Apostle’s meaning, when he says, “ we have freedom of access to the Holy of Holies,” that is, heaven; “and having a new and living way,” through His tabernacle the Church, which was “ first consecrated by the Body of Christ,” which is therefore as the ‘ vail’ by which we must be let into this tabernacle ; “let us approach to the Holies,” that is, to heaven; and then we make our nearest approaches to heaven, when we join in the solemn devotions of the Church. Now this is the most natural and obvious application of the foregoing context; taking it, as Ihave done, to contain a proof, that Christ did by His first Sacrifice once for all prepare us for Divine worship. For it is to say, since we have this privilege purchased by Christ, let us make use of it. Butif, on the other hand, it had been the Apostle’s design to tell us, that by the one Sacrifice of Christ we are perfectly pardoned, and have the perfection of Divine grace assured to us; wherefore should he send people to church, as if any addition could be made to these blessings by the ministry of men? They amongst us, who are best versed in such glosses as these, if they do come to church, or to any religious congregation, yet they take care to let the world know, that they disdain the very ministry and Divine ordinances, which they use. And the Quakers, who haye in- dulged themselves in the full consequence of this doctrine, have laid aside all ministry and ordinances; and a contempt of Priests and Sacraments is with them a certain sign of per- fection; but it is very evident, that the Apostle’s inference is directly contrary to the vain conceits of these men. For he speaks to the Hebrews, as to a body of men associated for Divine worship ; and in order to enter into heaven, he charges them to “draw near with a true heart, in fulness of faith ;”
221
HEB, IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
that is, with a full assurance, that Christ hath purchased for them the perpetual privilege of public worship ; and that we may be sure he meant drawing near in public worship, he charges them first to be baptized; for that is the undoubted meaning of those words, “ having your hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and your bodies washed with pure water.” For it is by Baptism, that men are sprinkled from an evil conscience; because thereby they have not only forgiveness of all past sin, but admittance into the Church and liberty to join in the public addresses and devotions of God’s people ; as the Jews of old were qualified to enter into the tabernacle, by havimg weter mingled with the ashes of the red heifer sprinkled upon them: see Dr. Whitby’s excellent note on this place’. Further, the Apostle bids them “ hold fast,” or carefully retain the use of “the oblation of their hope,” or “faith” (choose which reading youplease) “ without wavering.” I have before observed, that ὁμολογία signifies an oblation, and so 1 turn it here. For it is very certain, that the word has this signification with the Hellenists, and that it has any other signification is not certain. St. Paul twice uses this exhor- tation of holding fast our homology; first, chap. iv. 14, and the English word ‘ oblation’ admirably well falls in with the sense of the Apostle in that place; for “seeing we have a great High-Priest,”’ says the Apostle, “that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast,” or retain the use of “our oblation. For we have not an High-Priest, that cannot be touched with a feeling of our infirmities — Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy,” &c. The whole cannot more aptly be understood than by applying it to the Eucharist, which is our
vy [God appoints the water made _ flesh, Heb. ix. 13. Let us therefore,
of the ashes of the red heifer to cleanse them from those legal impurities, which rendered them unfit to come into His tabernacle, and made it dangerous for them to approach unto it; styling it on that account ‘a purification from sin:’ and this water was to be sprinkled on the unclean, and he was to wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and being thus purified might come into the sanctuary, Numb. xvii. 19, 20; this sprinkling of the blood and water sanctifying to the purification of the
saith the Apostle, who have (not our flesh only, but) our consciences purified from the guilt of sin, by the sprinkling (not of the blood of bulls and goats, but) of the Blood of Christ, and have our High-Priest still presenting this Blood before the mercy-seat, and who have our bodies washed with the pure water of Baptism, the laver of regeneration (as the clothes and bodies of the un- clean were with fountain-water), draw near to God with greater freedom than they could.” ]
SECT. 1
ver. 22.
CHAP. Il.
chap. iii. 1.
ver. 16.
ver. 25,
222 HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED. ὰ
homology or oblation ; and of which Christ Jesus is the High- Priest. And since He is passed into the heavens, to make way for its acceptance ; we have all the encouragement we can desire, to persevere in offering It up to God; and there- fore when he bids the Hebrews “ come boldly to the throne of grace,” I apprehend we cannot more congruously interpret the Apostle, than by supposing that he invites them to ap- proachthe Altar with a becoming modest assurance ; the same which St. Barnabas means, when he speaks of altius ad altare accedere, cap. 1, ““ coming up higher to the Altar.” For it is certain, that in the primitive Church all the most momentous and important petitions were presented to God at the Lord’s Table ; and to such prayers a gracious answer was expected on account of the Sacrifice there exhibited to God; and therefore no title does more properly belong to it than this of “the throne of grace,” as being the most eminent utensil in the Christian Church, “the seat of the Body of Christ,” and “ on which the Holy Ghost descends upon the invocation,” as Optatus observes, and where the devotions of the Church were offered with the greatest assurance of success. I am sensible, that commentators usually say, that Christ Himself is this throne ; but to make the same person both the High- Priest and the throne, in the very same text, seems not con- sistent with the common obvious rules of analogy and con- cinnity, especially when there is no manner of occasion for it; since this title does so exactly comport with the Holy Table. And when the Apostle here (chap. x. 23,) does again repeat this admonition of “ holding fast our homology,” I can- not but take him in the same sense; because by this ho- mology (whatever it be) we are to draw near to the Holy of Holies ; we cannot come to it without Baptism, as appears by the foregoing verse; and it was to be made in the Christian assemblies, and I suppose nothing does so well answer these characters, as the Eucharist. And as I have before in this section observed, that ὁμολογία has no other signification in the Greek version of the Old Testament; so neither have I any reason to believe, that it has any other in the New. I have in ‘the Propitiatory Oblation,’ p. 12, shewed, that this word in the ninth chapter of the second Epistle to the Corinthians, ver. 13, does most probably signify the oblation
HEB. ΙΧ. AND X. CONSIDERED. 223
made by the people of Corinth, at the Eucharist ; and that he there commends them for their “ subjecting their oblation to the Gospel of Christ” in His Church, rather than to the Law of Moses in the temple. And I do not find that the word is elsewhere used in the New Testament, except in the sixth chapter of the first Epistle of St. Paul to Timothy; where at the twelfth and thirteenth verses, first Timothy and then Jesus Christ are mentioned, as witnesses to the Christian oblation. He says of Timothy, ὡμολόγησας τὴν καλὴν ὁμο- λογίαν ἐνώπιον πολλῶν μαρτύρων, “thou madest the good oblation before many witnesses.” I suppose the Apostle alludes to the specimen, which Timothy gave, of his suffi- cience for the office of a Priest or Bishop, when upon his ordination he did in the face of the public assembly make the Eucharistical oblation to the great satisfaction and edifi- cation of all that were present? And it is to be observed, that as all nouns do sometimes give an unusual signification to their conjugate verbs, so may ὁμολογία here determine the sense of the verb ὁμολογεῖν, though there is no necessity to recur to this expedient : for ὁμολογεῖν is a word by which the LXX turn the Hebrew 773, Jeremiah xliv. 25; and as ‘to vow’ does perpetually imply some material thing, which is the object of that action; so we are sure it does so in that place. For the thing vowed was ‘incense,’ and ‘a drink offering.’ * We will surely perform the vows that we have vowed, to burn incense, and to pour out drink offerings.” And in the next yerse it is said of Jesus Christ, that “ He attested” or confirmed “the good oblation under Pontius Pilate ;” that is, during the time of his prefecture. We say in our Creed, that Jesus Christ suffered “ under Pontius Pilate,” ἐπὶ Ποντίου Πιλάτου, as here ; and it was upon His death, under this Roman pre- fect, that He made His Apostles the authentic witnesses of His offering His Body and Blood in the Eucharist, and insti- tuting the oblation of It in His Church for ever after. The ‘ood homology, made first by Christ, afterwards by Timothy, must, I apprehend, be the very same thing; otherwise it is not accountable, why the Apostle should express it in the same words, in two verses together. It may indeed be sup- posed, that Timothy at his Baptism did make confession, that “ Jesus was King of the Jews ;” and that this was the same
SECT. 1.
Heb. iii. 1.
224 HEB. 1X. AND X. CONSIDERED.
. confession, that Jesus made to Pontius Pilate. But that this
was ever part of the Baptismal confession is wholly uncer- tain; and if it were so, I leave it to the reader to determine, whether it be more probable, that St. Paul would take an oc- casion to commend a Christian Bishop, from having made his Baptismal confessions as he ought to do, and which every the meanest Christian under his care had done, as well as him- self; or from his being well versed in the most solemn and sublime office of the Christian religion, I mean, the Eucharist ; it is the more credible that St. Paul should ascribe it as a very reputable qualification to Timothy, that “ he had offered the good oblation before many witnesses ;” because his fellow- labourer, St. Clement of Rome, does thus characterize good Bishops, that “they offer the gifts in a holy unblameable manner.” I know Dr. Whitby by the homology understands his professing Christ in time of persecution; but this is merely gratis dictum, except it did appear, that Timothy before the writing of this Epistle had been under sufferings for Christ’s sake, of which I see no signs. And I would not have my reader despise this, as a mean conjecture of mine ; nor ought he to look upon it as such; for I really learned it from Origen, who, when he is arguing with Celsus, and speak- ing of sacrifices and particularly of the Eucharistical Bread as offered to God, adds immediately, καὶ κρατοῦμεν THY ὁμολογίαν ἕως ἂν ζώμεν" ; which I cannot otherwise render, without doing violence to the coherence of Origen’s discourse, than thus; viz. “and we hold fast our oblation as long as we live ;” and Jam pretty sure that my judicious reader will take it in this sense. There is also a passage in Cyril of Alexandria’s letter to Nestorius, where the title given by the Apostle is under- stood in that sense, which I now plead for; the Greek words are these, Ei δὲ δὴ καλοῖτο καὶ ᾿Απόστολος καὶ ᾿Αρχιερεὺς τῆς ὁμολογίας ἡμῶν, ὡς ἱερουργῶν τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ τὴν πρὸς ἡμῶν Αὐτῷ τε καὶ δι’ Αὐτοῦ τῷ Θεῷ καὶ Πατρὶ προσκομιζομένην τῆς πίστεως ὁμολογίαν --- πάλιν Αὐτὸν εἶναι φάμεν τὴν ἐκ Θεοῦ κατὰ φύσιν Ὑἱὸν povoyerny: that is, though (Christ) be called “the Apostle and High-Priest of our oblation, as sacrificing to God and the Father the oblation of our faith, offered to
* a. p. 10. Ap. 1. 9. 1636; Vid. Routh, Opuseula, vol. ii. Y [ Binius, tom. ii. pars i. p. 211. ed. pp. 27.)
HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED. 225
Him, and by Him to God the Father in our behalf ;—yet we assert Him to be the natural and only-begotten Son of God.” And he uses it so again in the defence of the tenth Anathema’, “ ody’ ds μείζονι Θεῷ προσκομίζων τὴν ἱερουργίαν, ἀλλ᾽ “Εαυτῷ τε καὶ τῷ Πατρὶ τῆς πίστεως ἡμῶν τὴν ὁμολογίαν πραγματευόμενος, “not as offering a Sacrifice to a greater God [than Himself], but as contriving the homology or obla- tion of our faith to Himself and the Father:’ where by ‘ the homology of faith’ he seems plainly to mean the Eu- charist. And Dr. Grabe will inform us, that this oblation is offered, not only to the Father, but to the Son, according to a passage in Origen ; which you may see in Grabe’s edition of Irenzeus, p. 324°.
I may be told, that oblation here consists of faith, or hope, (according to which lection the reader chooses,) for the words of the Apostle are, “ Let us hold fast the oblation of our faith,” or hope. And it is a settled rule with our adversaries, if the word ‘ oblation’ have a genitive case after it, to suppose, that the oblation or sacrifice consists of the thing signified by that genitive case: thus a sacrifice of praise or thanksgiving signifies nothing in their language but bare praise, or thanks- giving; a sacrifice of commemoration, nothing but an act of the memory or a calling to mind some past mercy. I shall hereafter have occasion to shew particularly, and at large, the insufficiency of this answer. In the mean time, I shall only observe in general, that this is a very fallacious rule. When St. James, in his Epistle speaks of the “prayer of faith,” will any man from hence conclude, that the prayer he meant consisted of nothing but faith? Must not prayer consist of words, desires, and inward application to God? And is not faith, or a well-grounded assurance of being heard, a commendable and necessary qualification of prayers rather than the substance of them? And the same may be said of the oblation of faith and hope; namely, these graces
Z Tom. i. pars iii. p. 466.
@ [* Quomodo preces atque obla- tiones tum Christo, tum Deo Patri per Christum offerantur, egregie declarat locus Origenis, lib. viii. contra Celsum, ita sonans: Toy ἕνα Θεὸν, καὶ τὸν ἕνα Ὑἱὸν, Αὐτοῦ καὶ λόγον, καὶ εἰκόνα, ταῖς κατὰ τὸ δυνατὸν ἡμῖν ἱκεσίαις καὶ ἀξιώ-
JOHNSON.
cect σέβομεν" προσάγοντες TG Θεῷ τῶν ὅλων τὰς εὐχὰς διὰ τοῦ Μονογενοῦς Αὐτοῦ, “Qi πρῶτον προσφέρομεν αὐτὰς, ἀξιοῦντες Αὐτὸν, ἱλασμὸν ὄντα (περὶ) τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν, προσαγάγειν, ὡς ᾿Αρχιερέα, καὶ εὐχὰς, καὶ τὰς θυσίας, καὶ ἐντεύξεις ἡμῶν τῷ ἐπὶ πᾶσι Θεῷ.᾽᾽]
chap. v. 15.
226 HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
CHAP. are the salt with which our oblation must be seasoned, rather —1 than the substance of our oblation. And it must be owned, that all sacrifices offered without these graces are only a vain profusion of God’s creatures. But it does by no means follow,
that we are to offer nothing else. Nay, since it does appear,
that there was a very eminent oblation instituted by Christ,
in which none have a right to join but such only as believe
or hope in Christ; therefore by “the good homology, the homology of our faith” or hope, it is most rational to believe,
that St. Paul designed the Christian Sacrifice ; for just so the covenant made between God and men by Christ is called το “the law of faith,’ and circumcision, “the seal of faith.” cae And whereas the word homology, in those places where it is © used in the Old Testament, does denote a freewill offering;
this does more properly express the nature of the Christian oblation, than any other word commonly used by the LXX
in their translation; (for I think they never use εὐχαριστία
for a sacrifice, though Aquila does). And it is well known ~
that St. Irenzeus does very much magnify the oblation of the — Eucharist, as “made by sons, not slaves,” as being offered © “freely and cheerfully®.”
SUBSECTION TO CHAP. II. SECT. I.
An additional subsection to Chap. 2. Sect. 1. shewing, that the Body and Blood of Christ, offered and received in the Eucharist, is Bread and Wine: that the Bread and Wine was believed by the ancients to be, not only the typical, but the true Body and Blood of Christ in power and effect. By what means the Eucharistical Bread and Wine were believed to become the true Body and Blood of Christ.
Tue adversaries of the Sacrifice in the Eucharist have no other way left, to evade the proofs I have produced for it, but by betaking themselves to their old refuge, which is this; if the ancients speak of the oblation of Bread and Wine; the answer is, that this is not the oblation of the — Eucharist, but of the alms or first-fruits offered by the laity: —
» Lib. iv. c. 34. [p. 825. ed. Grabe. Oxon. 1702.]
HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED. 227
if the ancients speak of the offering the Body and Blood of srEcrT. Christ, they tell us this is the Sacrifice of the Mass, and so Ξ give over all the ancients who mention this for transubstan- tiators, and condemn the Fathers for fools, and us for knaves ;
for this is the plain English of all they say upon this head. Now to vindicate at once the primitive Church and Fathers,
and ourselves, and to shew the insufficiency of the answer which our adversaries would put us off with upon this occasion ; and at the same time to justify myself for bring-
ing promiscuously what is said by the ancients, of offering
the Eucharistical Bread and Wine, the Body and Blood of Christ, or the types and symbols of that Body and Blood’,
I will shew,
¢ “ For I apprehend it will appear upon a scrutiny, that there was no obla- tion of the Bread and Wine, distinct from the other oblations, but what was performed in the Eucharist strictly so called; and that this Bread and Wine were offered only as representations of the Body and Blood of Christ, or as His true spiritual Body and Blood, as memorials of the grand Sacrifice. I can see no evidence in the first four centuries, that the Bread and Wine were offered to God separate, and apart from the main mass of oblations, any otherwise, or by any other act of obla- tion, than that which in the Clementine Liturgy followed after the words of institution. And I take it for certain, that the offering other materials toge- ther with the Bread and Wine is not the new oblation of the New Testament, is not that oblation instituted by Christ after the Passover Supper, but only previous and in order to it. And therefore, that when the ancients speak of offering Bread and Wine, especially if they give us to understand that this oblation was performed in the Sacra- ment, they can thereby mean no other oblation than that which was made in commemoration of Christ’s passion. And lest our adversaries should think that they do effectually answer this by
I. That the primitive Church believed the Body and Blood in the Sacrament to be Bread and Wine. II. That they believed them not to be the Body and Blood of Christ in substance ; and therefore often called them types, figures, symbols of the Body and Blood.
replying, that the Eucharistical obla- tion spoken of by the ancients was esteemed by them to be a Sacrifice of the Body and Blood, and therefore not of Bread and Wine; I shall therefore Prove, that the ancients did believe that the Body and Blood of Christ, in the Sacrament, were the consecrated Bread and Wine; and that they there- fore did, at discretion, call them either Bread and Wine, or the Body and Blood, or the types of the Body and Blood; and by this means, I suppose, I shall at the same time vindicate the Fathers from the imputation of believ- ing the real presence in the sense of the Church of Rome; and give a con- vincing proof, that the offering of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, pro- perly so called, and the offering the Body and Blood, or of Christ, of our Redeemer, and the like, and the anti- types or symbols of the Body and Blood, are several phrases importing the same thing; and that therefore I may as justly argue for the Sacrifice in the Eucharist from those places where Bread and Wine are said to be offered, as from those places where the Body and Blood, or Christ, or our Redeemer, or the types and figures of them, are styled an oblation, or said to be pre- sented to God.’ [Omitted in 2nd ed.]
Q2
CHAP. Il.
That the Body and Blood offered in the Eucha- rist are Bread and Wine.
228 HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
III. That they did not esteem them such cold and imper- fect types, as those before and under the Law. Nay,
IV. They believed them to be the true spiritual Body and Blood of Christ, though not in substance, yet in power and effect.
V. That the ancients laid a great stress on the belief of this doctrine.
VI. I shall shew by what means the primitive Church did beheve the Bread and Wine (their substance still remaining) to become the spiritual Body and Blood.
VII. Ishall consider some seeming excesses of the ancients on this head.
I. I am to prove, that the primitive Church believed the Body and Blood in the Sacrament to be Bread and Wine. And that the most primitive Church of the two or three first centuries did so believe, our adversaries are willing to grant. And it is certain, that few doctrines of Christianity have more plain evidence of their being received in those first ages, than this which I am now asserting, I mean, the Sacrifice of the Eucharist ; and therefore there can be no doubt but the Body and Blood, by them offered, was believed to be Bread and Wine. Our adversaries are very jealous of the ancient Fathers of the next succeeding ages; as if they had formed new notions of the real presence, very favourable to the doc- trine of transubstantiation. Now suppose this were true; yet it is certain, that the doctrine of the Sacrifice in the Eu- charist was as fully established in the second century (as appears by the writings of Justin Martyr, Ireneus, and Tertullian, and I might say in the first by the writings of — Ignatius, St. Clement, but especially by the words of institu- — tion) as it ever was, or could be, in ages to come. So that — the oblation of Christ’s Sacramental Body has no manner of — dependence on the notions of the real presence, which were afterwards broached. What we contend for is, that the Eu- | charistical Body of Christ Jesus is, or ought to be, offered to God. Whether this Eucharistical Body be the very personal, substantial Body of Christ, is another question. And men | may believe, and the Lutherans do actually believe, that the very substantial Body of Christ is in the Eucharist; and yet — not think, that it is there to be offered to God. And on the ©
HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED. 229
other side, the most primitive Fathers, and the present as- sertors of the Sacrifice here in England, do agree in main- taining that the Sacramental Body and Blood are, as to their | gross substance, Bread and Wine; and yet that they are in every Eucharist to be presented to God by a solemn act of oblation; but in truth I am fully persuaded, that the Fa- thers even down to the seventh or eighth century did still re- | tain a belief, that the Sacramental Body and Blood was Bread | and Wine; and the chief reason why some among us think | otherwise is this, that the ancients did not look upon the | Bread and Wine to be mere empty figures ; and therefore | expressed themselves in such a manner, as cannot indeed be | reconciled to the loose notions of too many in this age, who | call every thing ‘ transubstantiation’ that does not fall in with | Socinus and Arminius; but are very far from countenancing | the opinions either of the Papists or Lutherans. However I , shall at present confine my inquiry to the Fathers of the first | four centuries, or to those at furthest who had their educa- | tion in the fourth century, as St. Cyril of Alexandria and | Theodoret. And though I will not too positively affirm, that
no single writer within this compass of time was ever guilty of | any excess as to this particular; yet I do not at all despair | of convincing my reader, that it was the current prevailing | opinion, that the Bread and Wine did still remain, even after | the oblation and consecration. And no man is more clear | in this point than the latest single Father, whose authority | I shall cite, I mean Theodoret ; for he affirms’, that our | Saviour, “in delivering the mysteries, taking the symbol,
said, ‘This is My Body.’” And again‘®, “ He that called His | own natural Body Corn and Bread, and at another time | called Himselfa Vine, He honoured the visible symbols with | the title of His Body and Blood, not changing their nature, | but adding grace to nature.” But he yet more fully declares | himself in his dialogue between Orthodoxus and Eranistes a heretic’; where he introduces Eranistes asking Orthodoxus, “ What do you call that gift that is offered, before the Priest has made the invocation?” Orthodoxus having excused him- self from saying plainly, ‘ Bread,’ because some catechumens are supposed to be present, answers, ‘“ Food made of certain
dh. p. 46, Ap. € i, p. 46. Ap. 1. 5. fm. p. 46. Ap.
SECT. Ib
CHAP. Il.
230 HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
grains,” meaning bread made of wheat. ranist. “ And
——— what do you call the other symbol?” Orthod. “That also 1s
a common name, denoting a certain sort of liquor.” Hranist. “But what name do you give them, after consecration ?” Orthod. “The Body and Blood of Christ.” Eranist. “ And do you believe, that you partake of the Body and Blood of Christ?” Orthod. “I do.” FEranist. “As therefore the symbols of the Lord’s Body and Blood are one thing before the invocation made by the Priest, but are changed and become quite other things after the invocation ; so our Lord’s Body was, after the assumption, changed into the Divine substance,” (this was Eranistes’s heresy.) Orthod. “You are caught in the net, which yourself have woven. For the mystical symbols, after consecration, do not depart from their own nature, but remain in their former substance, figure, and shape.” Cyril of Alexandria having said? that Melchisedec blessed “ Abraham, by exhibiting to him bread and wine,” adds, “ We are blessed no otherwise by Christ.” And presently after, “He plainly declares the manner of the Priesthood for a demonstration of the thing; for Mel- chisedec brought forth bread and wine.” And as before cited", “ The table that had the shew-bread represents the unbloody Sacrifice of the loaves, by which we are blessed, eating the Bread from Heaven, that is, Christ.” St. Chrys- ostom on Psalm cix.' asks this question, “ And why does he say, according to the order of Melchisedec? Even because of the mysteries; for he offered bread and wine to Abraham.” And againk, “ What is the Bread? His Body.” But his epistle to Czesarius against Apollinaris is a most illustrious testimony to this truth, in the following words!. “ As we call the bread Bread, before it is blessed; but when the Divine grace has sanctified it by the intervention of the Priest, it quits the name of Bread, and is thought worthy to be called the Lord’s Body, although the nature of bread
remain in it.—So the Divine nature taking the government
of the Body of Christ, both these made but one Son, one Person.” St. Austin gives us his verdict to the same pur-
ἃ. p. 43. Ap. kT. p. 42. Ap. 1. 5. c. p. 43. Ap. ' 6. p. 48. Ap.
HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED. 231
pose, when he says™, “ What Melchisedeec brought forth, when he blessed Abraham, is every where offered under the Priesthood of Christ.” Therefore I conceive, what is offered * under the Priesthood of Christ” must be Bread and Wine, consecrated into the Body and Blood. Nor was the Bread and Wine offered in the primitive Church apart from the other ob- lations®, [until the words of institution had been pronounced over them.] And°, “To eat Bread is the Sacrifice of Chris- tians in the New Testament.” More fully yet in those words?, « We call neither the tongue, nor membranes, nor significant words pronounced by the tongue, nor literal characters wrote on parchment, the Body and Blood of Christ; but that only, which being taken from the fruits of the earth,” that is, bread, “and being consecrated with a mystical prayer, we receive to our spiritual health.’ He had observed just before, that the Apostle might preach Christ either with the tongue or pen, or by the Eucharist. Gaudentius is very clear in this point; for, says he4, “The same Christ is sacrificed in every Church, in the mystery of Bread and Wine.—And Christ declares, that whatever Wine is offered for a figure of His passion is His Blood.” And again’, “When Christ held forth consecrated Bread and Wine to His disciples, He said thus, This is My Body, This is My Blood.” And to mention no more’, “ Christ appointed the Sacraments of His Body and Blood to be offered in the figure of Bread and Wine.” St. Jerome teaches the same doctrine; for he bids us‘ hear or understand, that “the Bread, which our Lord brake and gave to His disciples, is the Body of our Lord and Saviour; since He Himself says to them, Take, eat, This is My Body,” &c. And", “ Wheat is also that of which the heavenly Bread is made; concerning which our Lord says, My flesh is meat indeed,” &c. Again*, “ Ye [Priests] offer My loaves, the loaves of shew-bread in every Church—springing from one loaf.” And’, “ We pollute the Bread that is the Body of our Lord, when we go unworthily to the Altar.”
m PD. p. 35. Ap. τ b. p. 30. Ap. » “Until they had been made the * d. p. 31. Ap. Sacrament by the words of institution.” © kp: 28.-Ap; [1st ed. ] Ὁ m. p. 29. Ap. ° C. p. 35. Ap =n. p. 29. Ap. PR. p. 37. Ap y o. p. 29. Ap.
4 a. p. 30, Ap. 1. 6.
SECT. 1:
CHAP. ΠΕ
232 HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
St. Ambrose testifies this truth in these words’, “ This Bread Christ gave to His Apostles, to distribute to the multitude of believers ; and gives it at this day, which the Priest daily consecrates with His words.” Ephrem Syrus bids us? “ earnestly consider, how Christ took bread in His hands, blessed it, and brake it into a figure of His Body; and blessed the cup into a figure of His Blood, and gave them to His disciples.” St. Gregory Nyssen gives us his suffrage in these words’, “It is at first common bread; but when the mystery has made it a Sacrifice, it is called the Body of our Lord, and isso.” For it is the Bread that is at first common that is made a Sacrifice; it is the Bread that is called the Body; it is the Bread [that is] the Body of our Lord. Macarius says‘, “Bread and Wine is offered in the Church, as an antitype of Christ’s Body and Blood; and they who partake of the visible Bread do spiritually eat the flesh of the Lord.” Epiphanius gives testimony to this truth; though he speak with some re- serve, lest he should be understood by them that were not yet communicants’. “ We see our Saviour took into His hands, as it is mentioned in the Gospel; that He rose up at supper, and took certain things, and having given thanks He said, ‘This is My’—somewhat: and yet we see it is not equal nor like to His image [body] of flesh, nor to His invisible Deity, nor to the shapes and features of His parts: for this is of a round shape, and as to its faculties wholly without sense; yet by grace He was pleased to say, ‘ This is My Body ;? and nobody disbelieves the word.’ Cyril of Jeru- salem, who speaks as magnificently of the Sacrament, as any of the ancients, yet clearly affirms, that the Bread is the Body®, “As the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist, be- fore the invocation of the adorable Trinity, was mere bread and wine; but when the invocation is once made, the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, the Wine His Blood; so such meals as are used in the pompous worship of Satan, being in their own nature mere meats, become abominable by the in- vocation of demons.” And he affirms‘, that “Christ said of the Bread, ‘it is My Body.’” Again®, “In the figure” or
* a. p. 26. Ap, ἃ ¢. p. 22. Ap ab. p. 25. Ap. € a. p. 18. Ap. FC. pe 20: aps fb. p. 18. Ap ο b. p. 26. Ap. |. δ. & c. p. 18. Ap
cre
HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED. Zoo
type “of Bread, the Body is given thee; in the figure of SECT
Wine, the Blood.” Eusebius Cesariensis says", “ First Christ, ————— and then His Priests, do mysteriously represent His Body | and salutary Blood in Bread and Wine.” St. Cyprian gives | clear evidence for us; for he asserts‘, that “Christ Jesus offered the same Sacrifice that Melchisedec did, that is, | Bread and Wine, viz. His own Body and Blood.” ‘ Nor* ' can His Blood appear to be in the Cup, if Wine be not | there.” Origen is very positive in this point, in those words’, | “We eat the loaves offered to God, they being made a cer- | tain holy Body.” And”, “He that partakes of the Bread par- | takes of the Body of the Lord; for we do not regard the | nature of the things that lie visible before us, but we con- duct our souls by faith to the body of the Logos.” And*, | “Not the material Bread, but the Word spoken over it, is | profitable to those that eat it, in a manner not unbecoming [the mysteries] of our Lord.” Tertullian instructs us°, that “ Christ’s Body is authoritatively declared to be in the Bread, censetur in pane ;” and in another place?, “Jesus Christ taking Bread, and distributing it to His Disciples, made it His Body.” And4, alluding to Gen. xlix. 11, “He shall wash his robe in wine,” he says, “so now He consecrates His Blood in the Wine, who then represented Wine by Blood.” He has, in these last words, an eye to Isa. Ixiii. 4, which he had cited just before. Clemens Alexandrinus seems of the same opinion; for he tells us", “the mixture of both these, viz. the liquor,” or Wine, “ and the Word, makes the Eucharist.” But this truth cannot be taught more plainly than it is by Irenzeus. For “Christ,” says he’, “took that which is the creature of Bread, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is My Body; and also the Cup, which, according to our doctrine, is part of the same creation, He pronounced it to be His Blood.” N.B. By the Cup He clearly means the Wine; and He intimates, that orthodox Christians be- lieved the Bread and Wine to have been created by God the Father, which the ails against whom he wrote, denied ;
Β by B B16. Ap. 1. og: ps SAPs ls iG. . p. 19. ae Po. p. 9. Ap.
Sut ἮΝ 4 poipe 9. Δ
1 a. p. 9. Ap. "DE Peder peewee
Page ps 10. Ap. 5. σ᾽ p. 4 Ap. 1. 19.
fot pa lO. Aip., 1.6.
CHAP.
234 HEB. IX. AND X. CONSIDERED.
and he thus disputes against these heretics again*, “ How can they be sure, that the Bread of the Eucharist is the Body of the Lord, and the Wine His Blood, if they do not allow Him to be the Son of that God, Who made the world?” And to the same purpose", “ How could our Lord in justice take Bread,—if He belong to another Father (who is not the creator of bread) and declare it to be His Body? How could He affirm the mingled Cup to be His Blood?” Again*, “ At this rate neither is the Cup of the Eucharist the com- munication of His Blood, nor the Bread which we break the communication of His Body;” and presently after, “ Christ pronounced the Cup of the creature to be His Blood, and the Bread, which is likewise a creature, to be His own Body ;” nay, he supposes, that the “bodies” of communicants “are irrigated, and increased or nourished by this Body and Blood of Christ ;” as you may see, by reading the paragraph next after the foregoing citation’. ΝΟΥ is St. Justin Martyr behind him, when he says, “ We have been instructed, that the food which has been blessed, or made the Eucharist by prayer, is the Flesh and Blood of Jesus, Who was incarnate for us.” When Ignatius speaks* of “breaking the one Bread,” or loaf, he can mean no other than that of the Eucharist ; and when, in the very next words, he calls this ἕνα ἄρτον κλῶντες, ὅς ἐστιν φάρμακον ἀθανασίας" ἀντίδοτον τοῦ μὴ ἀποθανεῖν, ἀλλὰ ζῆν ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ διὰ παντός. Epist. ad Ephes. ; “the medicine of immortality,” and “the antidote against death, that we should not die but live for ever in Jesus Christ ;’ he must be supposed to speak of it, as consecrated into the Sacramental Body of Christ; for in no other capacity can the Bread broken be the medicine of immortality. So then we have here the main body of the most noted writers, from the beginning of the second to the end of the fourth century, declaring the Bread of the Eu- charist to be His Body, the Wine His Blood; or, which is the same thing, that His Body and Blood offered and re- ceived in the Eucharist is Bread and Wine. I am sensible, that some of these Fathers do so express themselves at some
* f. p. 5. Ap. 1. 17. if p. 6. Ap. u ff p. 6, Ap. a. p. 2. Ap. xg. poo: Ap: * b. p..1. Ap.
HEB. ΙΧ. AND X. CONSIDERED. 235
places, that their words may be capable of that sense, which = the Lutherans would put upon them, viz. that the Body of Christ is in the Bread, the Blood in the Wine; not that the very Bread is the Body, or the Wine the Blood. Thus for instance, Cyril of Jerusalem may be understood”, “in the figure of Bread the Body is given thee;” and so may the words of Tertullian®; but it seems evident to me, that when the ancients say we receive the Body in Bread, they are to be understood just as that Englishman would be, who should say “he had received a hundred pound in silver;” and as the silver, and the hundred pounds, in this way of speaking, are the same; so likewise is the Body of Christ, and the Bread, the same in these passages of the Fathers: that Cyril of Jerusalem so meant is evident; for in the two other citations he directly calls the Bread Christ’s Body. And Tertullian at another place says‘, “Christ made Bread His Body;” and lest you should suppose that he imagined the Bread to be transubstantiated, he says immediately after, “Christ said ‘This is My Body,’ that is, the figure of My Body.”
The synods of the ancient Fathers do evidently speak this doctrine. I begin with that which I may call the Protestant synod of Constantinople, as being assembled on purpose to condemn images in the worship of God; which, speaking of the Eucharist, and having a little before rehearsed the words of institution, says, that® ‘ Christ commanded the substance of material bread, taken out [of the mass of obla- tions|, to be offered, as an image of His Body.” And the 24th canon of the third, alias sixth council of Carthage, pro- vides‘, “that in Sacraments of our Lord’s Body and Blood, nothing more be offered than what the Lord commanded, that is, Bread and Wine mixed with water ;” and I suppose, that when they speak of “ offering in the Sacraments,” they can mean no other oblation than that of the symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood. The Greek translation runs thus, “Iva ἐν τοῖς ἁγίοις μηδὲν πλέον TOD Σώματος καὶ τοῦ Aipartos Κυρίου προσενεχθείη, ὡς καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος παρέδωκεν, του-
5: βι. 13... Ὰ}. εἰν: 61. ἌΡ: 22. © g. p. 8. Ap. ' p. 50. Ap. ο. p. 9. Ap.
CHAP. Il.
Ancients believed the Eucha- ristical Body and Blood to be types and images.
236 HOW THE SYMBOLS ARE TYPES.
τέστι, ἄρτου καὶ οἴνου ὕδατι μεμυγμένου: that “in the holy [mysteries] nothing be offered beside the Body and Blood of our Lord, that is, Bread, and Wine mixed with water, as the Lord hath commanded.” They evidently speak of the Body and Blood, and the Bread and Wine mixed with water, as numerically the same. The council of Laodicea, can. 49°, forbids “ Bread to be offered in Lent, except on the Sabbath
and Lord’s day.” And by ‘ offering Bread’ must be intended —__
offering the Sacramental Body of Christ ; until it does appear, that the ancient Church did any where offer Bread separated from other materials, excepting at the Eucharist.
And as to the Liturgies, it is very evident, that after the words of institution rehearsed they all agree in offering to God ta Sa ἐκ τῶν Σῶν, “Thine own out of Thine own,” which is certainly a periphrasis of the Bread and Wine; for men cannot be said to offer the substantial Body and Blood, as things or gifts “out of other things or gifts.” For
if Christ’s personal Body or Blood are on the Altar, they _
cannot be supposed to have been brought from home by the communicants, or to have been taken out of the mass of oblations by the celebrator; therefore this expression fits nothing but the Bread and Wine, just before by the words of institution pronounced to be the Body and Blood, and yet remaining what they were, as to their gross substance ; and, indeed, the Clementine Liturgy has these express words, “We offer to Thee, our King and God, this Bread and this Cup.” And it will hereafter more plainly appear, that the Body and Blood of Christ, as offered by the ancients in the Sacrament, could be no other than Bread and Wine.
But it is now time for us to inquire, in what manner they |
called and thought the Eucharistical Bread aad Wine, Christ’s Body and Blood; and this brings me,
Secondly, to shew, that as they deemed the Eucharistical Body and Blood to be Bread and Wine, and so could not believe that the substantial Body and Blood of Christ were in the Eucharist; so they did often call the Sacramental Bread and Wine, types, anti-types, figures, likenesses, images, and symbols of Christ’s natural Body and Blood. — We have already heard several of the ancients applying
¢ p. 50. Ap.
HOW THE SYMBOLS ARE TYPES. 237
these names to the consecrated Bread and Wine. Theodo- ret® calls them “symbols.” Gaudentius' calls them “ figures ;” and so does Ephrem Syrus): Cyril of Jerusalem*, “ types.” Eusebius! uses the phrase αἰνίττεσθαι τὰ μυστήρια, which I have rendered with some latitude, “ mysteriously represent.” Abundance of authorities might be produced to the same purpose; but in so plain a case my reader will be content with the following. Victor Antiochenus says™, “that men are made partakers of the Body of Christ by the symbol of Bread; of the Blood of Christ, by the symbol of Wine.” St. Chrysostom calls" the Sacramental Blood “the symbol of death,” that is, of Christ’s effused Blood, “but a cause of life ;” and he calls the elements® “symbols” again, in a place presently to be cited more at large. Macarius speaks, as just before cited, of “ Bread and Wine being offered in the Church, as antitypes of Christ’s Flesh and Blood.” Gregory Nazianzen calls the elements? “the antitypes of the mysteries.’ Epiphanius tells us4, “that the Bread and Wine offered by Melchisedec did typify the antitypes of our Lord’s Body, Who said, ‘I am the Bread of life; and the antitypes of the Blood, which flowed out of His side.” Eusebius explains his notion of the Sacrifice, by saying’, “ We celebrate the memorial of this Sacrifice upon the Table, by the symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood ;” and®, “ He gave the symbols of His Divine ceconomy to His Disciples, com- manding them to offer the image of His Body.” Tertullian, as just now cited, interprets those words ‘This is My Body, by adding, “that is, a figure of My Body.” The Constitu- tions charge men‘ “to offer the antitypes of the royal Body of Christ ;’ and the Liturgy of St. Basil calls the elements, after the words of institution have been pronounced upon them", “the antitypes of Christ’s Body and Blood.” And the reader, by reflecting on these citations, will find, that in many of them the Sacramental Body and Blood are
Β ἢ, p. a Ap.; i. p. 46. Ap. 1.1; ° e, p. 38. Ap.
m. p. 46. Ap. P a. p. 20. Ap. 1. 6 i a, p. 30; d. p. 31. 1. 8. Ap. 4 Ὁ; p. 21. Ap. ib. p. 2 25. Ap. ΣΕ p. 16. Ap paca Ὁ. 18, Ap. s i, p. 16. Ap 1h. p. 16. Ap. 1. 10 ' d p. 47. Ap m p. 43. Ap. « g. p. 57. Ap n p. p- 39. Ap.
SECT. 1h
CHAP.
Il.
Yet not such im- perfect types and images as those be- fore and under the Law.
238 HOW THE SYMBOLS ARE TYPES.
called types and figures, even when they are distributed to be eaten and drunk; but I proceed to shew,
Thirdly, that they did not believe the Eucharistical Bread and Wine to be such cold imperfect types, as those under and before the Law; for itis evident, that the ancient Church believed the old types to be figures of the Sacrament, and therefore much more faint and less full of mstruction and efficacy than the Sacrament is. Of this we have very great evidence in the writings of the Fathers. Thus Theodoret makes the Eucharist the accomplishment of the Passover, in these words*, “It became them by the symbol to learn the providence of God,” (that is, it was fit that the Jews, by the Paschal lamb, should be taught how God had miraculously preserved their forefathers in Egypt ;) “and us that sacrifice the Lamb, to know the type before described.” And’, “ In that night, before the crucifixion, Christ gave an accomplish- ment to the typical Passover, and made the archetype of that
type.” Chrysostom speaks very home to this purpose, ποῦ
only as to the Passover, but the whole Jewish ceconomy?; * How much greater holiness becomes thee, O Christian, who hast received greater symbols than the Holy of Holies con- tained ; for you have not the Cherubim, but the Lord of the Cherubim dwelling in you. You have not the urn and the manna and the tables of stone and the rod of Aaron, but the Body and Blood of our Lord—the greater symbols you are honoured with, and the more tremendous the mysteries are, so much the greater holiness you are obliged to.” He plainly makes the Sacramental Body and Blood to be but ‘symbols,’ and yet much to be preferred to any thing under the Law; nay, in the same paragraph he says, “we have received the Spirit instead of the letter, and grace exceeding human reasoning, and an unspeakable gift;” all which is meant of the Eucharist. And as before cited*, “On the same Table Christ described the typical Passover, and super- added the true one.” Again”, speaking of the Law and Gospel, “ There was sanctification, here is sanctification ; there was baptism, here is Baptism; there was sacrifice, here
; bsp: 45. Ap. ak. p. 38. Ap. ye. p. 45. Ap. & x. p. 40. Ap. 7 e. p. 38. Ap.
0 AMER ne ae ae etins
~
HOW THE SYMBOLS ARE TYPES. 239
is Sacrifice—But. those as types, these as the verity.” But especially he elevates the Sacrifice of the Eucharist above those of Moses, in the following words‘*, “This Blood worthily received drives away devils—It invites the angels to us, and the Lord of angels—This Blood ordained the Priests ; this Blood, even in the type, washed away sin. If It had so great power in the type, if death were so affrighted at the shadow; tell, how it would be affrighted at the verity Itself. Truly tremendous are the mysteries of the Church ; truly tremendous are our Altars.” St. Austin teaches us the same thing‘, where, speaking of the Sacrifice of the Eucha- rist, he says, “‘ The ancient sacrifices of holy men were mani- fold and various signs of this true Sacrifice.” And elsewhere’, “Instead of all those sacrifices and oblations, Christ’s Body is offered, and communicated to the receivers.” And again‘, “The former sacrifices are abolished, and others instituted ; greater, as to their virtue; better, as to their benefit; easier to be performed, fewer in number.” Gaudentiusé calls “the Passover a figure, and not the proper Passion of the Lord; but under the verity, which we are [under], Christ is offered in every Church.” St. Jerome uses much the same way of expres- sion; for he styles» “the lamb the typical Passover, and the Bread given by our Saviour the true Sacrament or mystery of the Passover.” Andi, “There is as much difference be- tween the shew-bread and the Body of Christ” (he means the Sacramental Body; for he is speaking of the preparative holiness necessary in the administering and receiving It) “ between the image and the verity, between the patterns of things to come and what was by those [patterns] prefigured.” St. Ambrose speaking of the Sacrament says‘, “The Apostle says of the type thereof,’ viz. manna, “our Fathers did eat of the same spiritual meat.” St.Gregory Nazianzen says’, “We will partake of the Passover, which is yet a type, but much more plain than the old one. The legal Passover, I boldly pronounce, was an obscure type of a type,” or a type more obscure than [our] type. ‘There were,” says Cyril 4. p. 29. Ap.
5 Saag) h
4 A. p. 3d. 3 i rps Ὁ: caps e E. p. 35. Ap. 1. 9. k k. Be 27. τος ' G.p es fap
CHAP. Il.
240 HOW THE SYMBOLS ARE TYPES.
of Jerusalem™, “in the Old Testament the loaves of shew- bread; but these loaves of the Old Testament have received their accomplishment; the heavenly Bread and the Cup of salvation sanctify both body and soul.” Eusebius Cesa- riensis teaches the same doctrine, when he says®, “ We with good reason daily celebrating the memorial of Christ’s Body and Blood, and being dignified with a better victim and hierurgy than the old people, do not think it safe to fall back to the former weak elements, that contain symbols and images, and not the verity.” He as plamly speaks of the Eucharist, as any of those before cited on this head; nor does he say more than several of them, whom I have before produced. We have already heard Justin Martyr affirming, that® the cake offered for him that was purified from the leprosy was a type of the Eucharist. Nay, Clemens Alexan- drinus?, and several others of the ancients, make Melchise- dec’s bread and wine (the most perfect mystery and oblation, in their judgment, that ever was offered before that of Christ) to have been but a figure or sign of the Eucharist ; which is a clear proof, that this latter was, in their opinion, much more excellent and efficacious than the former. And St. Clement of Rome does, as we have seen, discourse of the Christian Priesthood and Sacrifice, under the emblem of the Levitical ; and then introduces the Christian Bishop as offer- ing the Eucharistical gifts, which must be said upon this supposition, that the Levitical types had given place to the Evangelical, as being much inferior to them in true value. And therefore we have no reason to dispute a citation, which Bulenger produces from Origen’s MS. works‘?; “Christ said not, this is a symbol, but ‘This is [My] Body,’ clearly, lest any one should think it a type.” And for the same reason, we may allow those words in the same sense to be genuine, which are cited by Bulenger, as from Magnes’ the Priest of Jerusalem (concerning whom see Dr. Cave, Histor. Literar., vol. 1. A.D. 265), viz. “The Eucharist is not a type of the Body and Blood, as some men defective in their understand- ing have prated, but rather the Body and Blood.” He does
md. p. 197 Ap. 14: Pe. p. 7- Ap. " e, p. 16. Ap. | [g. p. 10. Ap. ] ° b. p. 3. Ap. r [p. 14. Ap. ]}
HOW THE SYMBOLS ARE TYPES. 241
not say, the very personal or substantial Body and Blood; but rather the Body and Blood, than bare types. And so we must understand the words of Origen; they are not types, as the manna, the shew-bread, the Passover, the Jewish sacri- fices were, as the other Fathers before cited explain it; but if you call them types, you must at the same time acknowledge, that as to real benefit and efficacy they are the things signi- fied, as weil as the significators; just as an exemplification, made according to law, is as effectual to be shewed or pleaded, as the original itself. It is a copy, and yet more than a copy; for it is in effect the very record or letters patents, the words and meaning whereof it contains. It is a copy, for it was transcribed from the original; it is not a copy, for it cannot be set aside in pleading, as a copy may. And here I judge it very proper to observe the several degrees of types or symbols, exceeding, or falling short of each other, as to their power or clearness of signification, the intention of God in instituting them, and their beneficialness in relation to men.
SECT. x
1. There were types, which had only a bare aptitude to Degrees
resemble Christ to come; and of these, 1. Some were pro- bably not known, or discovered to be prefigurations of Christ, by them to whom they were first exhibited. It does not appear, that the Passover, or brazen serpent, were perceived by the Israelites in the land of Egypt and the wilderness, to contain any promise or representation of the death of Christ. I am not obliged positively to determine, that the knowledge of their signification was hid from the eyes of the Israelites : but I may have the liberty of supposing at least, that the meaning of these, or some other types of Christ in the Old Testament, was not discovered to them, to whom they were first exhibited. And I shall take it for certain, that, 2. God’s primary intention in instituting the Passover, and erecting the brazen serpent, was not to prefigure the death of Christ ; but the first was ordained principally for the redemption of the first-born from present death, and to entreat God’s favour on the people in order to their Evodus from Egypt, and for a perpetual commemoration of it: 3. and the other, the brazen serpent, was primarily designed by God, as a remedy against the bites of the venomous insects in the JOHNSON. RK
of types.
CHAP. Il.
li Corsxsl-2:
-
942 HOW THE SYMBOLS ARE TYPES.
wilderness. That God did so contrive both the one and the other, that they might be fit to resemble and prefigure the death of Christ, I do not in the least question; but I suppose it evident, that this was not His principal, or however not His sole intention.
2. There were, or might be types of Christ, that were known to be such by those, to whom they were first exhi- bited ; and such as were principally, or solely, intended by God for this purpose. 1. If there were any such types in the Old Testament as were understood by those to whom they were first exhibited, they were the manna, and water that issued out of the rock, and Melchisedec’s bread and wine. Of the manna and the water St. Paul speaks. “ Our Fathers did all eat the same spiritual meat, and drink the same spiritual drink.” Some, both of the ancients and the moderns, have believed, that the Apostle means, that the old Israelites in the wilderness did apprehend the manna which they ate, and the water which they drank, to have been prefigurations of the Body and Blood of Christ. And it is very evident, that when the Apostle calls them ‘ spiritual meat and drink,’ his design was to instruct us, that the manna and the water of the rock did beforehand describe Christ, not to the outward senses, to the eyes and taste, but to the mind or spirit; or that the Israelites ate and drank the Body and Blood of Christ, not substantially, or m a sensible manner, but under a vail and cover, discernible only to the eye of the soul. But I think, with others both of the ancients and moderns, that it is not absolutely necessary, that we suppose the old Israelites actually to have discovered the meaning of this meat and drink; but that it was suf- ficient to the Apostle’s purpose, that the manna and the water were certain signs of God’s favour to that people; and that Christians, “ who have the vail taken away from their eyes,” may in that manna and water spiritually discern the Body and Blood of Christ thereby typified. 2. If there was any such type under the Old Testament of Christ yet to come, as was both understood by them who first used it, and was primarily intended by God to be a prefiguration of Christ Jesus, and particularly of the Eucharist ; it was Melchisedec’s bread and wine. For it has been before observed, that
HOW THE SYMBOLS ARE TYPES. 243
Abraham did certainly see our Saviour’s day ; and therefore SE “< ze much more Melchisedec, whom St. Paul declares to have been greater or better than Abraham: and allowing what Philo says, that it was an ἐπιενίκεον or a triumphal Sacrifice, yet both Melchisedec and Abraham, being prophets, and foreseeing the victory hereafter to be obtained over Satan, sin, and death; and knowing that this was represented by Abraham’s victory over the kings, might, and probably did, by the intendment and direction of God Himself, design this Bread and Wine to be types of that unbloody Sacrifice, which was many ages afterwards to be instituted, for a stand- ing commemoration of this grand conquest. And what can be more rational than to suppose, that God, Who overrules the actions of men to His own purposes and designs, and Who had certainly let these signal servants of His into the secret of His Son’s mcarnation and sufferings, should also give them to understand, that He had decreed this triumphal sacrifice to be a prefiguration of the perpetual Eucharistic Sacrifice under the Gospel ? If there were any other sacrifice primarily intended by God, and notified to man to be a type of Christ, it was the intentional sacrifice, which Abraham by God’s direction offered, of his only son Isaac; which there- fore was one of the most perfect types of the future Sacrifice of Christ. And yet my reader will observe, that there is not in the whole New Testament any direct application of this type to the archetype, nor mention made, that it was de- signed as a figure of the grand Sacrifice. And therefore it is no more prejudice to Melchisedec’s bread and wine than to Abraham’s offering Isaac, that none of the writers of the New Testament do expressly take notice of it.
3. Such types as are commemorative of something past, and were chiefly designed by God, the Founder of them, to be commemorations, are not only more intelligible to them, for whose use they are designed; but carry along with them a more full and strong intimation of the Divine will and pleasure, that they are so to be used and understood. Thus the Jewish Passover, if considered as a prefigurative type of Christ, is but a very cold and imperfect type, because not primarily or solely intended by God for this purpose; nor (probably) apprehended by the generality of people before
τ 2
~
CHAP. Il.
244. HOW THE SYMBOLS ARE TYPES.
Christ, to have any such signification. But if you consider all the yearly passovers celebrated after the Exodus, as types or memorials of the first Passover in the land of Egypt; it will be found, that the sense and meaning of them must be very clear and obvious to the main body of the nation; who were not perfectly stupid and ignorant of so memorable a fact, as the deliverance of their fathers from Egyptian bond- age. And the express will of God requiring them, when they celebrated their yearly Passover, to call to mind the first institution of it in the land of Egypt, and the history of what went before it and followed after it; must be much more than a bare hieroglyphical memento of that providence; and must annually overflow their minds with a very high tide of joy and thankfulness, not only for the benefits then remem- bered ; but from that satisfaction that must fill the minds of all rational men, while they are engaged in the performance of any service or devotion, to which they are called by the voice of God Himself; whereas commemorations instituted by men, or such types and resemblances as are contrived by their wit or are owing to their invention, can only for the present soothe the fancy, or give a placid motion to the spirits of those that use them.
4. And further, if there be any such type, as is significant of the greatest mercies and blessings, and at the same time intended by God the Founder to contain and to convey to men all the chief mercies, for which the original archetype was first designed ; then it must be owned, that this infinitely exceeds in true value and power all others that hitherto have, or that ever can be mentioned; and that indeed it may be fitly enough called by the name of the archetype itself, and is 80 in power and effect. The annual Passover, though it was in other respects a full representative of the first Pass- over in the land of Egypt, yet did not convey to those who partook of it, the deliverance from temporal death or from the Egyptian bondage; and therefore, though it was in this respect a commemorative type, yet not so perfect as the Eucharist ; because by this latter, the pardon and grace pur- chased by the archetypal Sacrifice are applied to every worthy receiver. The lambs every year slain as types of those that were first sacrificed in the land of Egypt might indeed well
HOW THE SYMBOLS ARE TYPES. 24.5
enough deserve the name of the Passover, because they were as to substance the same sort of animals, and were designed as representations of those that were offered in !'gypt ; much more then may the more powerful and efficacious represen- tatives of Christ’s Body and Blood claim the name of their archetypes, if only upon this account, that if you consider them as types yet they exceed all other types whatsoever ; and that they do exceed all others, will appear, by reflecting on the particular degrees of types before rehearsed ; for
1. Bread broken and Wine poured out have not only an aptitude to represent the crucified Body and the effused Blood of Christ; but they are, or may and ought to be, known and understood to have this signification, by all to whom they are exhibited; and this cannot be said of the generality of types under the Law; for as God did never clearly intimate His will, or command, that the Jewish priests or people should be informed that their rites and sacrifices were types of Christ to come, so neither does it appear, that the people had by any other means an ap- prehension, that these rites and sacrifices were, by the secret Divine intention, appointed to prefigure the Messias ; whereas the Eucharistical types are such as are to be known and understood by all, for whose use they were in- tended; and “not to discern” the Eucharistical Bread to be “the Lord’s Body is to eat and drink our own condem- nation.”
2. Further, it does not appear, that any type under or before the Law was wholly and solely designed by God to be a type of the Messias, or of His Body and Blood. Melchi- sedec’s bread and wine were (probably) chiefly and primarily designed for types of Christ’s Body and Blood, but directly and immediately, of His sacramental, and more remotely and ultimately, of His natural Body and Blood; and I conceive it can be said of the Eucharistical Bread and Wine only, that they were designed by Almighty God for no other use or purpose but to represent the Body and Blood of Christ, and to be that Body and Blood in power and effect. And where- as the sacrifice of Melchisedec may be supposed to have been offered, partly in regard to the late victory of Abraham ; the Eucharist is offered in commemoration of no other conquest
SECT. it
The pre- eminence of the
Eucharist as a type.
CHAP. Il.
246 HOW THE SYMBOLS ARE TYPES.
but that of Christ. The Jewish sacrifices were first and directly intended for services, by which that peopie were to acknowledge the sovereignty of God, and to express their wants and desires, and to procure a relief and supply of them; and were so far from being primarily designed for symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood, that God never seems to have published to them in the Old Testament His secret contrivance, whereby those sacrifices were made types of “the grand oblation of Christ Himself.” However He did it not in so clear and open a manner, as it is reasonable to suppose He would have done, if this had been His first and primary intention in enjoining them.
3. All the legal and patriarchal types were only adum- brations of Christ as yet to come; and therefore, how well soever they were adapted in their own nature to prefigure the Sacrifice of Christ, yet men could not be so capable of discerning and penetrating into the scope and meaning of them before their completion, as we now are; who not only see our types, but have a more perfect knowledge of the archetype, Christ Jesus, than they who lived in the ages before Him. And the Eucharistical Bread and Wine are, I suppose, the only types instituted by God, to represent the Sacrifice of Christ, since the first and personal obla- tion of It.
4. And lastly, this I apprehend is the only type of Christ’s Body, which conveys and applies to those for whose use and benefit it was designed; and which, as to efficacy and virtue, is what It represents; and therefore no wonder that this type does so frequently and usually carry the name of its archetype, and that the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist do so currently pass under the title of Christ’s Body and Blood. Who would bear him that should say, Moses struck Christ Jesus; or, the Israelites baked and ground the Body of their Messias; or that King Hezekiah brake Christ Jesus to pieces, or that the Jews every year roasted Christ Jesus? And yet it is certain, that the rock which Moses struck was a type of Christ; that the manna which the Israelites ground and baked, and the brazen serpent which King Hezekiah brake in pieces, and the Passover which the Jews were annually obliged to roast, were all types of our Saviour ;
HOW THE SYMBOLS ARE TYPES. 247
but not such full, lively, and powerful types, as the Eucha- SECT. rist is of Christ’s Body and Blood; and therefore of him that profanes the Sacrament we may say with St. Paul, that “he is guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord,” that he “tramples under foot the Son of God.” It may be allowed, that the annual Passover was such a type of the first Passover, as our Eucharist is of the Body and Blood of Christ, (though it did not come up to It in power and effect, as has been hinted;) and I conceive, that this is the only type, beside that of the Eucharist, that has ordinarily gone under the name of its original; though it is to be observed, that the original, I mean that in the land of Egypt, was itself a type, in respect of the Body and Blood of Christ. And it is certain, that nothing but the Eucha- ristic Bread and Wine has ever had this title commonly given to it. Christ is indeed once or twice in Scripture called the Passover, the manna, the rock, the door, the vine, the way, &c. But this does by no means prove, that the Eucha- ristical Bread and Wine are no otherwise His Body and Blood, than as the Passover, manna, rock, as a door, a vine, and a way are Christ Jesus; for none of these are any more than bare types and metaphors; nor dare any one say, that he who touched the manna or the Passover with unclean hands was guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ Jesus, or that he who trod upon the rock trampled under foot the Son of God, or that he who kicks at a door insults Christ Jesus, or the man who cuts a vine wounds His Saviour, or that he who sweeps the way cleans his Re- deemer; and therefore none of these types or metaphors have ever been used, in the current language of the Church, to denote our Saviour, or His Body and Blood, but that at the same time some additional words have been used to shew the meaning of them. Whereas on the other side, the Eucharistical elements are usually denoted in Scripture by the words Body and Blood, without any qualifying or abating additions; and this way of speaking descended from the Apostles to the Church of the succeeding ages; and ‘to offer,’ ‘to receive,’ ‘to eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ, are as familiar phrases in the ancient monuments of Christianity, when by the Body and Blood of Christ they
CHAP. Il.
The differ-
ence be- tween Bap- tism and the Eucha- Tist in this respect.
Rom. v. 16.
248 HOW THE SYMBOLS ARE TYPES.
meant only the symbols, as ‘to receive the Sacrament’ or ‘to administer the Communion’ are now with us. It is true, the other Sacrament of Baptism is a most efficacious institution, and the water is commonly presumed to represent the Holy Ghost. But if by this is meant, that the water is a type of the blessed Spirit, the third Person of the Holy Trinity, I cannot subscribe to it; for there cannot properly be a type of a thing present; and I suppose all that believe Baptism to be somewhat more than “ washing away the filth of the flesh” and a mere federal rite, must believe also, that the Holy Ghost is there present to perfect the Baptism. I dare not affirm therefore, that the dove at our Saviour’s Bap- tism was a type of the Spirit, or that the mighty rushing wind and the fiery tongues were so; they were rather tokens and indications of the presence of the Divine Spirit; and such I take the baptismal water to be; not such a type or sign, as the brazen serpent was of Christ yet to come, but such a sign, as breathing is of life now present. Ammonius of Alexandria‘ supposes that “the water differs from the Spirit in our apprehension only ;” or that it is the water of the bap- tismal font, whereby the Holy Spirit is first conveyed to Chris- tians; or that Baptism by water is the Baptism of the Spirit, where there is not some incapacity on the side of the recipient. I apprehend that this will not easily be received in this age ; especially because it may seem to suppose, that the Holy Spirit, being given in Baptism, implies habits of grace to be thereby infused; because the Holy Spirit must carry along with It all Its ordinary effects, where the recipient is capable of them. But I humbly conceive, that no human soul is, without some miraculous instantaneous operation, capable of taking habits of virtue all at once; and though the operations of the Spirit are preternatural, yet not miraculous; and I think the only immediate effect of the Spirit in Baptism is remission of all sin, and removing our natural disability to the worship and service of God, and “the sentence of con- demnation,” under which we were all born; and that other graces are wrought in us by that Holy Spirit, Which by Bap- tism receives us under Its protection, gradually, and accord- ing to the capacity of the recipient. And this doctrine I ape dep:
HOW THE SYMBOLS ARE TYPES. 249
learned from those words of St. Barnabas, in his epistle, cap. 5ΕΟΤ.
Vi.; ἔπει οὖν avaxawicas ἡμᾶς ἐν TH ἀφέσει τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, ἐποίησεν ἡμᾶς ἄλλον τύπον, ὡς παιδίον ἔχειν τὴν ψυχὴν, ὡς ἂν καὶ ἀναπλασσόμενος Αὐτὸς ἡμᾶς, which I thus render, (taking the two participles as verbs, which is not unusual with Hellenistic writers, and is here necessary to clear the sense,) “ After therefore that Christ had renewed us by the remission of our sins, He made us [in] another shape, so as to have an infant-like soul, even as He Himself reformed us :” where he plainly makes renovation to consist in forgiving sins; and makes the new moulding or reformation of our minds to be not performed at the same time with the other, or all at once, but to be consequent upon the former renovation ; and Christ is always thus reforming us, from our Baptism to our death. And I look on these words of St. Barnabas to be a better explication of the renovation or regeneration of Chris- tians by Baptism, than whole volumes of modern writers upon the same subject. And I may here very seasonably observe, that as the Holy Spirit is present in our Baptism, to seal the remission of sins, and to infuse the beginnings of Christian life; so He is present in Confirmation, to shed further influ- ences on them that receive it, for the further suscitation of the gift of God bestowed in Baptism and in the Eucharist, as will hereafter appear at large, for our farther progress and increase in grace; and this is a sufficient reason, why the water of Baptism is never called the Holy Spirit, as the Bread and Wine are called the Body and Blood; viz. because it is not peculiar to Baptism, that the Holy Spirit is thereby com- municated to the receivers, if they be duly disposed for the reception of it; for the two other evangelical ordinances are attended with the same benefit ; whereas on the other side, it is peculiar to the Eucharist, that the Body and Blood of Christ are there received. I know some grave men" have told us that St. Augustine asserts, that the Body and Blood of Christ are received in Baptism. Now if that Father has any where dropped such words, I must declare I have not yet been able to lay my eyes on them ; but giving it at present for granted that St. Augustine may have said so, we must look upon it as a peculiarity of this Father. And I suppose my reader will * [ὡς παιδίων, Hefele. } 5 [Dr. Hancock, ‘ Patres Vindicati,’ p. 29. ]
CHAP. II.
Made types by a Divine power.
250 HOW THE SYMBOLS ARE TYPES.
agree with me, that our judgments are not to be determined in a thing of this nature by the saying of one or two single Fathers of the fourth or fifth century, when it is not supported by any authority from Scripture, or from the more early writers of the Church.
And that the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist were such types as exceeded all others, not only in clearness of signifi- cation, but in that power and energy, by which they became such images as are perfectly to the life, will appear from this ; that they, who sometimes call them types and images, do at other times call them the very Body and Blood; and others suppose it is by virtue of the Divine benediction, that they become such types and figures. So for instance, Ephrem Syrus says*, “ Our Saviour blessed the Bread into a figure of His Body.” And the synod of Constantinople, so often men- tioned, calls it’, “a most effectual type and memorial ;” and “the unerring image of His natural flesh, sanctified by the coming of the Holy Ghost—Which the true Artist of nature delivered to us with His own voice.” The Liturgy cited by Pseudo-Ambrosius de Sacramentis, lib. iv. c. 5, teaches the Priest to say, Fac nobis hanc oblationem adscriptam, rationa- bilem, acceptabilem ; {ut sit nobis in figuram| corporis et san- guinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi?. Now to pray, “that the oblation may become the figure of Christ’s Body and Blood,” is to suppose, that the Divine will and power is necessary to this end; and that therefore there is something in the Eucharist beyond bare resemblance, or an aptitude to repre- sent Christ’s Body and Blood. For this resemblance is in- herent in the nature and condition of types of the common sort; so that it is not consistent with common sense, to pray to God that He would make them to become so. Suppose that the Israelites, or any considerable body of them, had had a clear view of our Saviour’s life and death; and did so far penetrate into the Divine secrets as to know, that the manna, and the rock, and the brazen serpent were types of
x b. p. 25. Ap. pendix, i.e. that of Paris, 1686; the Y p. dl. Ap. 1. 6. 24. 26. same is also in that of Basle, 1567. And * [The Editor is unable to find the in both editions the books ‘ De Sacra- words, which he has inclosed in brack- _mentis’ are classed among the genuine ets. ‘Quod est figura’ occurs in the works of S. Ambrose. } edition, which Johnson used in his Ap-
HOW THE SYMBOLS ARE TYPES. 251
Him; their very knowledge that they were types, would 5ΈΟΤ. teach them, that there was no occasion for them to pray = that they might be made types. Who ever in his wits prayed, that the rainbow in the clouds might become a type or re- presentative of that, which was first exhibited to Noah as a sign of the covenant? Therefore it is evident, that the an- cients, when they called the consecrated Bread and Wine types, meant something more by this word than a bare likeness or resemblance inherent in the nature or circum- stances of the things themselves. They were types in such a manner, as they could not have been without the concur- rence of the Divine will and power. There is no occasion for me to enlarge on this head any farther, considering that I am next to prove,
Fourthly, that the ancients believed the Bread and Wine to be the very spiritual Body and Blood of Christ.
1. I shall shew, that they believed them in some sense to How the ancients
be the very Body and Blood. ἜΞΕΝ ΩΣ 2. Yet not in substance, but in power and effect. = ee
I begin with the first proposition, that they believed them very Body Ε = and Blood. in some sense to be the very Body and Blood.
We have heard Theodoret say this already; for when? Eranistes asks Orthodoxus, whether he believed he did par- take of the Body and Blood, he makes Orthodoxus answer, “ves, 1 do;” and after having said, as before cited, that they are still Bread and Wine in their own nature, he adds, “ but they are by the understanding apprehended to be what they are made, and they are believed and venerated, as really being what they are believed to be.”
Cyril of Alexandria affirms”, “that Christ is in us by His own Body, Which quickens us by the Spirit. For we must not say, that because the nature of the Deity is not eaten, therefore the Holy Body of Christ is a common thing; but it is necessary we should know, that it is the all-quickening Word’s own Body; nor do we consider this as the flesh of a man that was one of us, but as truly made the own Flesh of Him, Who for our sakes became, and was called, both Son and Man.” St. Chrysostom will rather be thought to say too much than too little ; as in the following words‘, “Thus let us
* m. p. 40, 46. Ap. 1. 14. b i, p. 44. Ap. © t. p. 40. Ap.
252 HOW BREAD AND WINE
CHAP. do in the mysteries, not eyeing only what lies before us, but ae faithfully retaining His words; for His word is without deceit, our sense may be deceived. That has never failed us; but this is in many things erroneous. Since then the Word says, ‘This is My Body ;’ Jet us both be convinced, and believe, and look on It with our intellectual eyes ;” and‘4, ‘“ Look that you be not guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ. They [the Jews] murdered the most Holy Body; thou re- ceivest It with a polluted soul.—He prepares a Body, and mingles Himself with us, not only as to our faith, but in reality.” Again*, “If they who defile the royal purple are punished, as if they had torn it; why is it not reasonable, that they, who receive the Body of Christ with an unclean mind, should expect the same punishment with those that rent It with nails?” And‘, “The Cup which we bless, is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ? The Apostle speaks so as to make us believe and tremble. What he says is this, that That which is in the Cup flowed from Christ’s 5146. Lastly’, “ Why will ye receive the Body of God above all, the spotless pure Body, that was so familiarly conversant with the Divine Nature, by Which we are and live, by Which the gates of hell were broken down and the doors of heaven opened; why will ye receive this [Body] with so much insolence?” St. Austin says the same thing®, “A Body hast Thou prepared Me’—this was promised by certain signs; the signs are taken away, because the pro- mised verity is exhibited. We are in This Body; we are partakers of This Body ;—and I wish you may not receive It to your own condemnation ;” and‘ he calls the Eucha- ristical Body, “the one only Sacrifice for our sins ;” and again, in a place not mentioned in my Appendix, viz. De Eucharistica, lib. i. c. 18, that “wicked men do sin, taking the very Body of our Lord, the one only Sacrifice for our salvation*.” Gaudentius says the same very plainly’, “ He that is the Creator and Lord of natural beings, Who produces
du. p. 40. Ap. guine Domini, unico Sacrificio pro e B. p. 41. Ap. salute nostra, quamvis Ipse Dominus fF. p. 41. Ap. dicat, ‘ Nisi quis manducaverit,’ We. ΚΤ, p. 42. Ap. Nonne idem Apostolus docet etiam hoc h yr. p. 33. Ap. L 11. perniciosum male utentibus fieri.’’— N. p. 36. Ap. Contra Cresconium, tom. ix. p. 103. ]
1 k [ Quid, de ipso Corpore et San- a. p. 30. Ap. 1. 10.
ARE THE BODY AND BLOOD. 253
bread out of the earth, does again out of bread make His own Body; and He that of water made wine, of wine makes His own Blood; for He is able, and hath promised to do it.” And™, “ Believe what is declared, that what thou receivest is the Body of Him that is the heavenly Bread, and is the Blood of that heavenly Vine.” St. Jerome says" of Christian Priests, that they make “the Body of Christ with their own mouths ;” and again®, he uses almost the same words. St. Ambrose says?, that “the holy things are transfigured into the Body and Blood of Christ, by the mystery of the sacred prayer.” Ephrem Syrus bids you’ “ partake of the spotless Body and Blood of Christ, being assured that by a perfect faith you eat the entire Lamb.” St. Gregory Nyssen speaks more than enough to this purpose’; for he inquires, “ how it is possible, that one Body of our Lord, perpetually dis- tributed to so many myriads of believers throughout the world, is entirely in every portion; and yet remains entire in Itself?” and declares his belief* that “the Bread sanc- tified by the word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word,’—and', “these things or privileges He gives by virtue of the eulogy,” that is, the Eucharist, “changing the nature of the visible things into That [Body].” St. Basil speaks of" “sacrificing and touching the Body of our Lord, Which is greater than the temple.” Optatus asks*, “ What is the Altar, but the seat of the Body of Christ?” And St. Hilary speaks home to the purpose in those words’, “ by the declaration,” or, rather, according to the declaration “ of the Lord, and our faith, It is true Flesh and Blood; and these being received, do cause Christ to be in us, and us in Him ;” nay, he there supposes, that we have in the Eucharist, in some sense’, “the very nature of Christ’s Flesh.” Epi- phanius observes’, that Christ “was pleased to say, ‘It is My Body,’ and no [Christian] man disbelieves His words.” Cyril of Jerusalem having observed” that “the Bread is His Body, the Wine His Blood,” adds, “ He once by His own
ΠΡ 50: Ap. ΕΣ
i ag Shine Ap. S. p. 29. Ap. xc. p. 22. Ap.
Fe. p. 26. Ap. ¥ a. p. 20. 1. 12. ote Ὁ. 25... Ap. * ]. 19:
a. Ὁ: 20-.Ap. 1. 18. * c, p. 22, Ap. 1. 7 1» 28. > Ὁ, p. 18. Ap.
SECT. ie
CHAP.
254 HOW BREAD AND WINE
command changed water into wine in Cana of Galilee; and does not He deserve to be believed, when He changed wine into Blood?” And‘, “ We do with full assurance partake of It, as the Body and Blood of Christ.” And‘, “ Consider them not as mere bread and wine; for they are the Body and Blood of Christ, according to what our Saviour pro- nounced ; though your taste suggests this to you, determine - not the matter by the taste; but be beyond all doubt assured by faith, of your being vouchsafed the Body and Blood of Christ.” St. Athanasius gives us his sense in the following words®, “It is the Body, to Which [God] says, ‘ Sit Thou on My right hand ;’ to Which the Devil, with his wicked powers, was an enemy, as also the Jews and Gentiles; by Which [Body] He is called the High-Priest and Apostle, by means of the mystery which He delivered to us, when He said, ‘This is My Body.” He makes the Body in the Sacra- ment the same, in some sense, with That, Which sits at God’s right hand. St. Cyprian speaks in the same strain, when he says of some that had sacrificed to idols, and pre- sently after came to the Eucharist‘, “ When they had scarce done belching the fatal food of idols, and their jaws stunk of their crime, and breathed forth mortal contagion, they in- vaded the Body of the Lord.” Then he cites Ley. vu. 20; xxii. 8; 1 Cor. x. 21; xi. 27; and presently adds, “but the Body and Blood of our Lord is invaded with violence, in con- tempt of all these [Scriptures.] They sin more against the Lord with their hands and mouths now, than when they denied Him.” Origen speaks thus of the two Sacraments8, “Baptism before was enigmatical in the cloud and the sea; but now regeneration by water and the Spirit is in open view. Then manna was the enigmatical food; now the Flesh of the Word of God is the true food, in open view.” I turn in specie, ‘in open view,’ as being opposed to i enigmate. Tertullian says}, “the flesh is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ.” Clemens Alexandrinus speaks thus of the Eu- charistical Body‘, “The Word is every thing to an infant, a parent, a preceptor, a foster-father. ‘Eat My Flesh,’ says
© ¢. p. 18. Ap. & c. p. 10. Ap.
ad. p. 19. Ap: 7 m. p. 8. Ap. eidp- Lie: a. p. 7. Ap.
fsa. Liens
ARE THE BODY AND BLOOD. 255
He, ‘and drink My Blood :’” (he evidently cites the words of institution but memorifer, and therefore according to the sense, not the letter;)—‘‘ He commands us, when we partake of the new food of Christ, that receiving Him we may, if possible, treasure Him up within us, and inclose our Saviour in our breast.” St. Irenzeus’s judgment may be known by what was produced from him, to prove, that Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood; and it is observable, that he so calls them, without any qualifying or restraining words: he supposes it to be a truth, of which men should be well assured ; and asks the heretics, against whom he disputes‘, “ How they can be certain, that the Eucharistized Bread is the Body of Christ, if He be not the Son of the Creator of the universe.” He supposes It to be made the Body of Christ by a Divine power, as we shall hereafter see; and asserts It to be a preservative of our bodies for a happy resurrection ; all which particulars I shall have an occasion to prove from him particularly ; and in the mean time my reader may, if he please, read these opinions of his, in my citations from him in the Appendix. Now certainly he that believed this must think the symbols more than bare types; and indeed I cannot observe, that this Father does ever give them the name of types; but perpetually, the Body and Blood, the Kucharist; or the heavenly thing, that is, the Spirit, and the earthly, that is, Bread and Wine. And when Justin Martyr! affirms, that Christians were in his time instructed that the Bread and Wine were the Flesh and Blood, and that they were made so by prayer; he must intend something more than naked types; for there is no occasion for prayer or for the Divine concurrence toties quoties, to render any thing a resemblance of another; and I dare say, that the Arminians and Socinians will bear witness, that nothing but breaking the Bread and pouring out the Wine is necessary to make the elements the Body and Blood in their sense, who believe them to be nothing more than mere memorandums. When therefore Irenzeus and Justin Martyr lay such a stress upon the belief of this doctrine, and suppose a power from above necessary to render the elements the Body and Blood; they must suppose withal, that they are in some sense the very Petepeon Ap: 1. 17. la. Dp» 26, Ap lols,
SECT. I.
256 HOW BREAD AND WINE
CHAP. things which they represent. A Deist or an atheist may M__ believe, that the Bread and Wine are types of Christ’s Flesh and Blood, and were by Him appointed as such; but it is
very evident, that these holy men did look upon this doctrine
of the elements being the Body and Blood, as a truth of very considerable moment, and in which Christians ought to be
fully informed and assured; and that they were made the
Body and Blood at their solemn request. And St. Ignatius
teaches us the same doctrine, when he charges it as a heresy
St.Igna- on the Docete™, “that they abstained from the Eucharist and erie Eee prayer; because they did not acknowledge the Eucharist to and Blood he the Flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, Which suffered for
in the Eucharist. our sins, and Which the Father by His goodness raised from
ee the dead.” For certainly these words sound something much beyond and above a type or metaphor ; nay, his words imply, that whoever then received the Eucharist was thereby sup- posed to acknowledge, that the Eucharist was the Body of Christ, Which suffered and rose again. For why should they abstain from the Eucharist on this account, if they could communicate without some way or other professing their belief of this doctrine? If it be said, that these Docete believed our Saviour’s Body to have been a mere phantom, and that He suffered and rose again in appear- ance only, not in reality; and that therefore they never used the Eucharist or any thing that was an imitation of the Eucharist, because by using the type or symbol they must have confessed the original to be a real substance; I may allow this argument to be true, and yet with good reason deny, that the Docete were sensible of this consequence. Nay, it is certain, the Marcionites in the next age, though they believed Christ’s Body and Death and Resurrection to have been only appearances without any realities, yet did cele- brate the Eucharist in their way; and though Trenzus and Tertullian argued against them, that by owning the Sacra- ment of the Body and Blood they confuted their own opin- ion; yet there is not any reason to believe, that they felt the force of this argument; therefore it is most probable, that they only abstained from the communion of the Catho- lic Church, because by joining im that they must have ac- ἈΠΕ; 7. 3. ἊΨ:
ARE THE BODY AND BLOOD. DV
knowledged, that they received there, in some good sense, that Body of Christ, which died and rose again; and it is certain St. Ignatius allowed but one Eucharist, viz. that in the Church; and might therefore justly say, according to his principles, that they abstained from the Eucharist, though they had something like it among themselves; for, however that was celebrated, being out of the Church, he thought it, ipso facto, null and invalid: but if these Docete differed from the Marcionites, in supposing that the Eucharist, however administered, implied confession that the Body and Blood were there, then this shews, that heretics, as well as Catholics, had this notion of the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist ; viz. that they were by common acceptation the Body and Blood of Christ ; though this was what they could not consent to, and for this reason as well as others were condemned by St. Ignatius. If it be said, that it is sufficient to suppose that the Bread and Wine were typically the Body and Blood, in the judgment of St. Ignatius and the Church of his age; and that the Docete could not allow this, because they believed the personal Body Itself to be but a phantom ; it has already been observed, that their descendants the Marcionites did not believe, that a phantom could not be typified; nor is there any ground for supposing, that these Docete might not be of the same opinion: they might, as the Marcionites did, own the Eucharist to be the Body, in the same sense that the original was so, that is, in a mere imaginary manner; but this did not come up to the sense of the Church and the holy Martyr; for by them the Eucharist was believed to be that Body of Christ, which suffered and rose from the dead; and it seems highly probable, that com- municants in St. Ignatius’s days were obliged expressly to acknowledge the Eucharist to be Christ’s Body and Blood, by answering Amen at the delivery of the Sacramental Body and Blood, as well as by joining in prayer to God, that He would make them so. And because the Docete could not do this, therefore they absented themselves from the Christian assemblies. They might perhaps have been brought to be- heve, that the Bread and Wine were types or shadows, and have received them as such; but they could not subscribe to the doctrine of the Church. If any man think that the
JOHNSON. 5
SECT. I.
CHVATR: Tie
258 HOW BREAD AND WINE
words of St. Ignatius import, that they allowed of no Eucha- rist or Sacrament in any sense; it must follow, that they allowed of no prayer neither. For St. Ignatius says, that they abstained from prayer as well as the Eucharist ; but I shall hereafter have occasion to shew, that by prayer he means that of consecration used by the Church; and that therefore it is most rational to believe, that he means, by the Eucharist, only the true Eucharist as celebrated in the orthodox assem- blies. It may indeed be granted, and is,I think, plain in itself, that these Docete were a sort of heretics just now started up, when St. Ignatius wrote, and so had not yet formed themselves into separate assemblies; and till they had done this, could not have any thing that was im any sense an Eucharist. It is probable the holy Martyr might be appre- hensive that they were now meditating a new scheme of wor- ship and discipline ; which makes him in the following words caution the Smyrnzans to “shun divisions,” and “ follow the Bishop.” Nay, St. Ignatius seems apprized, that they had taken some steps at least toward the drawing up a liturgy of their own for celebrating a mock eucharist ; which was probably the occasion of his tellimg the Smyrnzans, that°® “that Eucharist was valid, which was [performed] by the Bishop or one licensed by him; and that without the Bishop it was not lawful to baptize, or make a love-feast.” However this is very evident beyond all dispute, that it is heresy in the judgment of Ignatius not to believe that the Eucharist is the Body of Christ, which suffered and was raised from the dead. And though we have already heard this holy Martyr asserting that Bread is the Eucharist, yet we see he believed this Bread to be the Body of Christ. The words ‘type,’ ‘figure,’ ‘sign,’ or ‘symbol’ are never used by this most primi- tive writer in relation to the Eucharist, nor yet by the pen- ἢ men of holy Scripture; and though Tertullian and they who came after him do frequently use this way of speaking, and © in a very sound sense; for they do thereby mean that the Eucharist is not the very natural or substantial Body of Christ; yet because these words are commonly taken to signify something that is only a famt umbratile resemblance of another, and not so lively and powerful a representation
Op. 2: aps
ARE THE BODY AND BLOOD. 259
as the holy Eucharist is; therefore the holy Scripture and SECT. the most ancient writers forbear this way of expression. - Our Saviour says, “ This [Bread] is My Body; this [Wine] is My Blood.” The Apostle says, “The Cup of blessing is the communion of Christ’s Blood; the Bread which we break is the communion of Christ’s Body.” It is certain that the Bread and Wine remain ; but when blessed, they are the Body and Blood: neither our Saviour nor the Apostle do add any qualifying or abating words; and therefore so far as those elements are capable of becoming Christ’s Body and Blood, so far they are so. And I cannot but express my concern, to observe how these words of Christ and His Apostle are by too many melted down by new expositions into mere tropes and figures. The most that the learned Dr. Whitby can Dr. Whit- make of 1 Cor. x. 16, “The Cup which we bless, is it not ase rua the communion of the Blood of Christ? the Bread which 1% 17° we break, is it not the communion of the Body of Christ ?” I say, the most he can make of this text is thus expressed by him: ‘The Bread, thus broken and shared out, may be said to be the communion or communication of the Body of Christ, as being the communication of that Bread which represented His broken Body; and the Cup they severally drank of may be styled the communication of the Blood of Christ, as beimg the communication of that Wine, which represented His Bloodshed. “Jt may be said,” “it may be styled,’ says the Doctor; by which is intimated, that if it be so said or styled, it is im a very remote and improper sense, only so as to bring our Saviour and the Apostle off from being guilty of an absurdity. And that he meant so, appears from what he says in his note on ver. 3 of this chapter, where he produces those texts of Scripture as parallel to each other, viz. “The three branches are three Gen. xl. 12. days.” “The seven good kine, and the seven ears of corn, Gen. xli. 26. are seven years.” “The four great beasts are four kings.” Dan. vii.17. “Thou art that head of gold;” and (after several other texts Dan. ii. 38. of the same sort with these) he ends with those words, “ This Bread is My Body, this Cup is My Blood ;” so that it should seem, the Bread of the Eucharist is in the Doctor’s judgment no otherwise the Body of Christ, than the visionary head of gold was Nebuchadnezzar. I had not taken notice of this
s2
CH AP; II.
260 HOW BREAD AND WINE
but to give my reader an instance, how modern interpreters explain the Sacrament into as mere a type as any that is to be found in the New or Old Testament, making It a mere emblem, only not insignificant. The Fathers did not so; but though they acknowledged It a type as being not the very natural Body, yet they asserted It to be such a type as was at the same time a verity, in comparison of all the types of the old Law; and such a type as is, in some good sense, the Body Which it represents. Our Saviour positively affirms, “Tt is My Body ; Dr. Whitby in good manners thinks him- self obliged not to contradict Christ Jesus; and therefore confesses, “it may be so said,” “it may be so styled,” just as the three branches are said to be three days. Ireneus, Justin Martyr, and Ignatius did not thus expound away the life and efficacy of the Sacrament into mere cold and empty types; and let my soul be with theirs. Another ex- position of this text the Doctor gives us presently after, in these words, ‘ Do we not, by partaking of this Bread and Wine consecrated in memorial of Christ giving His Body broken and His Blood shed for us, hold communion or declare our fellowship with Christ??” Whereas, to explain the text is not to tell us what we do in the communion, but in what sense the Bread is the communion of Christ’s Body, the Wine of His Blood. But another very learned man, and for whose person and merits I have a very singular esteem, tells his parishioners, in explaining the Lord’s Supper to them, that “the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ is a name given to the Lord’s Supper, as it is a public declaration which every Christian makes of his being a member of Christ’s Body, and his living in communion and charity with his fellow Christians, as members of the same Body, under one common Head, the Lord Jesus.” Now to
shew how far this is from a just explication of these words, °
I only desire my reader to observe, that the words of St. Paul
are, “the Cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the com-
munion of the Blood of Christ? the Bread which we break,
is it not the communion of the Body of Christ?” So that
beyond all possibility of doubt, it is the Cup and the Bread
which are here determined to be the communion of the Body Pp. 152.
ARE THE BODY AND BLOOD. 261
and Blood. And if the Cup and Bread be the communion, I cannot for my life conceive, how this communion is a declaration which every Christian makes. A declaration is something said or done by us; but the communion, here spoken of, is the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ. Sure our declaration cannot by this learned man be thought the Body and Blood of Christ. If he had said, that our receiving the Sacrament is a declaration of our being members of Christ, I should have made no objection ; but not content with this, he asserts, that the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ is a declaration, or as a declaration; and so a thing is turned into an action, and a blessing which we come to receive into a declaration made by us. And the most reputable writer that he has with him in this particular, is, I believe, Dr. Whitby ; who, in his para- phrase of 1 Cor. x. 16, makes the Apostle call the Cup the communion of the Blood of Christ, because it is the rite whereby we profess to hold communion with Christ; and in the same place he supposes the Apostle calls the Bread the communion of Christ’s Body, because by eating at Christ’s Table we declare our fellowship with Him. By which he seems to me to make the Cup (by which I suppose he means the contents of it, viz. the consecrated Wine) a ‘ rite,’ and the Bread a ‘ declaration,’ as the other great man has done after him. Now I must confess I should as soon believe transub- stantiation, as that two substances are declarations. What these learned men mean, by thus endeavouring in a cata- chrestical manner to resolve these words of the Apostle into jejune dilute figures, I will not allow myself to guess; but sure I am, that how well soever such glosses may be received in this age, they would never have been relished in any other ; and I cannot at present think of a better account of the reason why the Eucharist is called the communion of the Body and Blood, than those words in the Church Catechism,
τ viz. that “the Body and Blood of Christ are verily and
indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper.” And he who observes the sense and judgment of the ancients in this particular, as before delivered, cannot but think it one instance of the degeneracy of this present age, that men are so cautious of saying any thing that may not
SECT. 1.
CHAP. Il.
262 HOW BREAD AND WINE
please the palates of pretended philosophers and virtuosi, that if we were not taught this doctrine in our Catechism while we were children, we should scarce be informed by any other means, unless laying aside all prejudice we read it in our Bibles. It is sad to consider, how men naturally run from one extreme to another; and that nations and churches do so too. During the times of Popery, the real substantial presence of Christ was a darling prevailing notion ; and next to the Pope’s supremacy, it may be justly owned, that transub- stantiation is the most ill-favoured and yet the most beloved error of that Church. But now we are run so far into the opposite extreme, that we turn all that is said by Christ or St. Paul on this subject, into type and allegory ; and there- fore it was not only to clear the notion of the Sacrifice, but to enable myself to lay before my reader the doctrine of the primitive Church on this important head of religion, that 1 have, without prejudice or partiality, inquired into the notions of the Fathers of the four first centuries and other monu- ments of antiquity in those ages; and it is their sense, which I am reporting to you, without any regard to persons or causes. And when I reflect upon the new notions of this age and the authors of them, I cannot but wonder, that men of learning and judgment should prefer the novelties of Zuinglius and Arminius to the good sense and correct ex- position of St. Chrysostom; who in his homily on the tenth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, ver. 16, 17, says, that “ the Apostle speaks so as to make us believe and tremble; for what he says is this, that what is in the Cup is That Which flowed out of Christ’s side, and of This we par- take.” And he adds, not far from the same place’, “ After he had spoken of the communion of the Body, and because that which partakes is different from the thing it partakes of, he takes away the distinction, though it seem but a small one. Having spoken of the communion of the Body, he endea- voured to say something that was yet more close still; where- fore he adds, we being many are one Bread and one Body ; for [says the Apostle] why do I speak of communion? We are that very Body. For what is the Bread ? says the Apostle: The Body of Christ. What are the partakers? The Body of 4 F. p. 41, Ap. ¥ I. p.. 42. Ap.
ARE THE BODY AND BLCOD. 263
Christ ; not many Bodies, but one Body.” In which words, as he speaks decisively against the Church of Rome, not only in making Bread the Body of Christ, but likewise in making the Sacramental Body to consist of the members, as well as of the head ; so he is very express, that in the Eucharistical Bread and Wine we receive the Body of Christ Jesus, more than in atype or figure. For what is there in a type, to make a man tremble? And he makes the communion to be the Eucharistical Body and Blood, not our ‘declaration.’ And I am the more confirmed in this exposition of St. Chrysostom, when I consider, that St. Irenzeus understands the Body and Blood in this text to be the Bread and Wine consecrated for this purpose. For speaking to those heretics, who vilified the creation, and would not allow it to be the workmanship of the good God and Father ; “ Then,” says hes, “ neither will the Cup of the Eucharist be the communication of His Blood ; nor the Bread which we break, the communication of His Body.” And in another place‘, “ How could our Lord, in common justice, take that Bread, which is, according to our doctrine, a part of this creation, and declare it to be His Body, if He be [the Son] of another Father? And affirm the mixed Cup to be His Blood?” Ignatius himself supposes the Eucharist to be “the Body of Christ, which suffered for our sins and was raised from the dead.”
The truth is, it is not much to be wondered, that they who deny the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood in the Eucharist should shew no great zeal or concern for making them pre- sent there in any sense, except that which is very cold and remote. The Lutherans do indeed earnestly contend for a Real Presence, and such a presence as is, I firmly believe, contrary to Scripture and antiquity. And when I reflect on this, and some other notions, entertained by them upon very slight and insufficient grounds, so far as I am capable of judging ; I am the less surprised that they have a very great zeal for the belief of the real Body of Christ, and against the offering of It in the Eucharist; for a real Altar, but against the Sacrifice. But they who understand consistence and con- gruity better than the Lutherans seem to do, are not insen-
sible, that it will be very hard to give any good reason why
s g. p. 6. Ap. “op. Gano.
SECT.
For what cause many of late are not con- cerned to assert, that the Eucha- rist is the Body and Blood.
264 HOW BREAD AND WINE
cake the Body or Blood of Christ should be in the Eucharist, if they are not there to be offered to Almighty God. They whom I have discoursed with on this subject, when they have been asked, what they understood by “the Body and Blood of Christ’s being verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper?” have never been able to give any other answer than this, that we do in that institution receive all the benefits purchased by Christ’s death. But if this be all the account that can be given of this matter, with- out admitting the oblation, (and this is all the account that I can find in the acquaintance and conversation that I have had either with modern books or men,) then I must confess 1 am very much at a loss, why our Saviour should make the eating His Body and drinking His Blood so important a duty. It is true, the arbitrary will and pleasure of Christ Jesus, made known to us, is a sufficient reason for our com- pliance and obedience; but since, in other commands of Christ Jesus, we can with great delight see the grounds and reasonableness of what He requires us to do, it would be some satisfaction to us to see it in this, as well as in other particulars. Now it is certain that all the benefits of Christ’s death might be applied to us, without eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, if He had intended nothing else but this by instituting the Eucharist. We know the benefits of Christ’s death are first applied to us by Baptism, and they might from time to time have been again and again applied to us by that or ° any other covenanting rite, if Christ had so pleased. Nor is it to be presumed that Christ would have had the Eucharist the Sacrament of His Body and Blood, except there had been a very apparent reason why His Body and Blood should be there. The principle of immortality might have been con- veyed to us, as it was intended to have been imparted to Adam, by eating of the fruit of the tree of life, or by any other means that God had approved of. Nor do I believe that our adversaries will easily find any solid and just reason for Christ’s Body and Blood being in the Sacrament, but in order to their being presented to Almighty God for the pro- curing and applying the purchase of our Saviour’s death. God thought fit, that they should be procured and applied by the same outward means, and would not burden us with
ARE THE BODY AND BLOOD. 265
a multiplicity of outward performances; and since the authen- tic representatives of Christ’s Body and Blood were the most proper materials of a Sacrifice for the pleading our cause with God, and moving Him to grant us such spiritual mercies as we stand in need of, therefore He resolved that these same materials first offered should be returned to those that offered them, filled with Divine blessings. They that are averse to the doctrine of the Sacrifice can shew no reason, why there is any more occasion for the Body of Christ in the Eucharist than in Baptism; they seem sensible of this, and therefore are not at all solicitous to assert this doctrine, and content themselves with putting such a sense on our Saviour’s words as may signify the least that such words possibly can. But as all the ancients did fully believe the Sacrifice of the Eucha- rist ; so they were careful at the same time to assert, that they had in the Eucharist something which was worthy to be offered to the Almighty, and not such poor and sorry types as the bullocks, sheep, and goats were under the Law. If it be asked, how it comes to pass that the benefits of Christ’s death may be applied in Baptism without an actual Sacrifice at that time offered? I answer, no man is fit to offer Sacrifice, either as a Priest or layman, until he be first cleansed from his natural pollution. Men therefore must by Baptism be prepared for the Eucharist: before they join in offering Sacri- fice, they must be sons of the Covenant. And it has before been shewed, that as the Sacrifice of Christ is a lustrative Sacrifice to prepare men for Divine worship, it is not to be repeated ; and by virtue of the first and principal Sacrifice, the Church is empowered to prepare men for the Christian Sacrifice, by the laver of regeneration.
But I expect, that a reader not freed from vulgar preju- dices should start two objections against what I have been advancing. The first is, that it is but a poor and seemingly inconsistent account I give from the ancients of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament, since it is evidently a Body and Blood of Bread and Wine; besides that Bread and Wine, of themselves considered, can be no more than types, and as sorry types as those under the Law. The second ob- jection is, that I have already asserted the Sacrifice of the Eucharist to be a spiritual Sacrifice, and hinted the Body of
SECT. 1.
266 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
cHAP. Christ in the Sacrament to be a spiritual Body ; which seems __1. to be very irreconcileable to the common notions now pre- vailing ; since I have withal represented the Bread and Wine, which are corporeal things, to be this Sacramental Body and Blood offered in the Eucharist. Now I hope effectually to answer all this, by proving, That the 2. That though the ancients believed the Bread and Wine ancients in the Eucharist to be the Body and Blood; yet they did not tie eae believe, that they were the natural or substantial Body and the Body Blood, but that they were so in a spiritual manner, in power eo and effect. So that the Bread and Wine are not the Body and effect. and Blood, in themselves considered, nor merely by their re- sembling or representing the Body and Blood, but by the inward invisible power of the Spirit; by Which the Sacra- mental Body and Blood are made as powerful and effectual for the ends of religion, as the natural Body Itself could be if It was present. And it is on this account that It is called Christ’s spiritual and mysterious Body, as being discerned to be what It is by the inward, not the outward eye; by our faith, our minds and spirits, not our senses. And this, when proved, is a full answer to the objections above mentioned ; for though bread and wine, abstractedly considered, are indeed weak elements; yet when enriched with the special presence, and invisible operations of the Spirit, they are very effica- cious and beneficial. Though bread and wine in themselves can be no more than figures, yet when the Holy Ghost has blessed and sanctified them, they are in power and effect to us the same that the archetypes would be. And though we cannot apprehend this by our taste or sight, yet we may by our reason, informed by a right faith. I will therefore shew under this head,
(1.) That the ancients did believe, that the Holy Spirit was in an especial manner present with the holy symbols, to render them the spiritual Body and Blood.
(2.) And that they did on this account look upon them as mysteries, to be spiritually discerned and received.
(1.) The ancients did believe, that the Holy Spirit was in an especial manner present with the holy symbols, to render them the spiritual Body and Blood. This is a doctrine which, as it was universally received in the primitive Church, so it
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 267
will not easily be admitted by those with whom seeing is believing. Our adversaries are willing to suppose, that when mention is made of the spiritual Body of Christ, the spiritual Sacrifice, and the like; nothing is thereby meant but some- thing that is not real, but merely figurative, imaginary, or any thing else that is nearer to nothing. They suppose that the word ‘spiritual’ has a sort of annihilating power, and can turn any words that it comes near into mere airy empty sounds; or that when it has any real signification, it imports something divested of all matter, and that has no substance but in our thoughts. The ancients did not so; but believed the material Bread and Wine to be the spiritual Body and Blood of Christ, on account of the presence and invisible operation of the Holy Ghost, in and by those elements; and though they were fully sensible that the energy of the Sacra- ment could be perceived by the mind or understanding only, yet they firmly believed this energy to be there; though some men, for want of faith or other good dispositions, did not perceive it, and were therefore never the better for it.
I expect the contradiction of our adversaries on this head ; because it is the very heart and life both of the Sacrament and Sacrifice, according to the judgment of the primitive Church. It is by this, that our Christian types and symbols are nobly distinguished from those under and before the Law. It is truly observed by our adversaries, that animal or bloody sacrifices, in themselves considered, are more apt representa- tions of the Sacrifice of the Cross than Bread broken and Wine poured out ; and yet they are not pleased to inform us, in what it is that our types exceed those; as if they could be content, that the old Levitical types should be esteemed superior to those of the Gospel, rather than they should lose an occasion to depress and, if possible, annul the Sacrifice of the Eucharist. But the holy Fathers had a just sense of the dignity of the Christian mysteries, and the very centre in which all their reasonings and arguments on this subject meet, is this; that the Holy Ghost, at the prayers of the Priests and people, is in a peculiar manner present, and imparts a secret power to the Sacramental Body and Blood, by which they are made to be in energy and effect, though not in substance, the very Body and Blood Which
SECT. 1.
CHAP. Il.
268
THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
they represent. So that it greatly concerns them, who oppose the doctrine of the Sacrifice, to stifle and suppress this doctrine, and to endeavour, what in them lies, to confute the Fathers and the primitive Church. And they have, by what they have already published, sufficiently expressed their good will, and given full demonstration, that they are not at all checked or damped by any reverence or regard to antiquity; and that they have a much greater value and esteem for modern, than for ancient Fathers. And they have no reason to despair; for though they are embarked on a leaky bottom, and their arms and tackle but indifferent, yet it must be owned that they have the wind and tide with them; for we live in an age, when nothing is more contemned than antiquity, especially by those who set them- selves up for judges of all disputes and controversies relating to religion, in the coffee-houses and such like places of public resort. And therefore I have reason to suppose, that the doctrine, which I am now going to support by the authority of the ancients, will be one of the first which will be attacked ; not only because it is a main pillar of the doctrine of the Sacrifice, but because all must know that it is not like to meet with approbation from the common stream even οὗ learned men. A polite writer” has cautioned us against “placing” any “mysterious powers in the act of consecra- tion, and invocation of the Holy Ghost ;’ and against “as- cribing a strange mystical efficacy to the act of consecra- tion.” And we know well enough what Mr. Hales of Eton said upon this occasion, in more harsh terms borderimg upon blasphemy ; but then we know too, that the Founder of this holy institution was by His enemies laid under the impu- tation of the same crime, with which Mr. Hales charges (in language unfitting a Divine and Christian, and which the primitive Fathers would have branded with the mark of heresy and apostasy*) the use of the words of institution, in cele- brating the holy Eucharist. Nor are we ignorant, that very
ἃ Defence of the Doctrine and Prac- tice of the Church of England, p. 11, 12. [εἀ. London, 1712, Pamph. 300. Bodl. }
* [Vid. ‘A Tract on the Sacrament ofthe Lord’s Supper. By Mr. Hales
of Eaton.’ Pamph. 403. Bod]. Where he says, ‘‘The main foundation that upholds the necessity of this form of action now in use, is Church-custom and Church-error.”’ ]
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 269
many of the sciolists of the age will be ready to hiss the secrT. notion of the Holy Spirit’s imparting a real sanctity ὁ. ὁ . - : ‘4 That the imanimate creatures such as bread and wine, out of doors. Holy spirit But it is our great satisfaction, that if the doctrine of the ταὶ {P?° Sacrifice be exploded on this account, and the assertors of reas it suffer in their reputation or otherwise; they must suffer
from such men, as would, if they had lived in the three first centuries of Christianity, have joined in persecuting and running down some of the greatest lights of the Christian Church, and, as we verily believe, the Christian Church itself:
for we have no reason to doubt but that the main diffusive
body of Christians throughout the world were then in this Opinion. We are very sure that the Divine Spirit can act
upon inanimate creatures, and that the natural Body of
Christ Jesus was a “ holy thing,” because It was conceived Luke i. 35. by the operation of the Holy Ghost. Nor can we appre-
hend any reason, why He may not exert His power in con- secrating and blessing the Sacramental Body of Christ Jesus,
as well as in forming and perfecting the natural. We know
that when Theophilus of Alexandria, at the latter end of the
fourth century, to express his resentment against some monks
who had displeased him, procured the works of Origen, which
were assiduously read and immoderately admired by these monks, to be condemned in a synod held at Alexandria, and
in another in the isle of Cyprus; one head, upon which Origen’s works fell under this censure, was, that in the
books περὶ ἀρχῶν he had affirmed that “the operation of
the Holy Ghost does not affect imanimate or irrational things’.” Whether Origen do say this or not in those
books, I shall not pretend to determine; but it is certain,
that in his thirteenth homily on Levit.* he says, “‘ We must receive the sacred mysteries in a holy place by the grace of
the Holy Spirit, by Which every thing that is holy is sanc-
tified ;? meaning, I conceive, that nothing can be conse-
crated in that manner, that the Sacrament is, but by the
power of the Holy Ghost. And in his tenth book on the
Υ [“Dicit enim Spiritum Sanctum mysteria per gratiam Spiritus Sancti, non operari ea que inanima sunt, nec ex Quo sanctificatur omne quod sanc- ad irrationabilia pervenire.’,—Vid.Gal- tum est.’’—P. 258. tom. ii. ed. Paris. land. Bibl. Vett. Patt., tom. vii. p.627.] 1733.]
% (“In loco sancto capiamus sancta
CHAP. ἘΠ
270 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
Epistle to the Romans, that “the Holy Ghost is the fountain of all sanctification or consecration*.”” And it is certain, that he over and again asserts”, that the symbols of the Eucha-
rist are sanctified or consecrated; and therefore, according.
to his former doctrine, must be consecrated by the Holy Ghost. Nay, he asserts in that very place, where he speaks less honourably of the Sacrament than perhaps any other of the ancients, or than he himself does elsewhere, that® the “consecrated food is a cause of illuminating the mind ;” which is a property, that it must receive from the Holy Spirit. And when Theophilus charges Origen with this error, he does not wholly deny that Origen admitted the con- currence of the Holy Spirit in consecrating the symbols, but only, that “the Sacrament produced sanctification in us ;” for he says, Origen affirmed that the Eucharist “did only dispose or excite our mind to apprehend the graces of the Holy Spirit.’ See Theophilus in his first Paschal Letter®. It is certain, that the holiness imparted to senseless crea- tures is of another sort from that which is conferred on rational and intelligent beings; nor is it possible for us to determine, wherein the sanctity of the Sacramental Body and Blood does precisely consist. But we take it for granted, that the Eucharistical Bread and Wine were intended to be consecrated in the most perfect manner that such creatures can be consecrated; and we believe, that it is the Holy Ghost alone can impart this greatest degree of consecration. Theophilus was so sensible that this was the universal opinion of learned Christians in and before his own age, that he thought he could not in any particular have a more plau- sible plea for condemning Origen and his adherents than this of his seeming in one of his works to deny what he else- where asserts, viz. that inanimate creatures are not capable of being consecrated by the Holy Ghost. He therefore takes this advantage, solicits, and procures a censure to be passed against Origen and his‘followers by the Bishops of the neigh- bouring Churches, and, among the rest, by the famous Epi- phanius. But, it should seem, St. Chrysostom was not
a [* Sanctificationis fons Spiritus “ep. 10. Ap. Sanctus est.’”-—Tom. iv. p. 676. ] 1 Biblioth Patr., vol. iv. [Such a > aaa. p. 9, 10. Ap. passage does not occur there. |
Ι q ᾿
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 271
satisfied with the justice of these proceedings; for he coun- SECT. tenanced and received those monks, whom Theophilus and Ξ Epiphanius had condemned, nor would he join with them in forbidding the works of Origen to be read. Now it is certain, that no man was more positive as to the consecration of the holy Eucharist by the illapse of the Holy Spirit than St. Chrysostom ; and therefore the reason why he did not come into the measures of Theophilus must be, that he was not convinced that Origen was guilty of that error which Theo- philus and his friends imputed to him. The polite writer, lately named, says, that “the invocation of the Holy Ghost is no more than a solemn consecration of the Bread and Wine to holy uses*.” Now this is, I think, a very degrading account of the most venerable mystery of the Christian Church. The Bread and Wine are consecrated for holy uses by being placed on the Altar. And we shall ere long hear Origen tellmg us, that whatever is by a private man dedicated or vowed for the service of the Altar is Sanctum Domini, “the holy of the Lord,” even before it is brought to church, while it is yet in his own custody. If this be ajust account of the consecration of the Eucharist, then it is evident there is no difference between what is sanctified by the advent of the Holy Ghost and what is barely separated for pious uses, between the consecration of a church, and the consecration of the Baptismal water, or the Eucharistical Bread and Wine; and so the walls of the church are as holy as the Sacramental Body and Blood. And this learned person cannot but know that the Eucharistical elements, in the primitive Church, had been dedicated to holy uses, not only by the lay-proprietors’ offering them to the celebrator, but by the celebrator’s offering them to God, before the solemn invocation was made for the descent of the Holy Ghost. And Dr. Hancock’ says very well, that “sacrifice implies consecration ;” that is, what- soever is solemnly offered to God is thereby supposed to be consecrated to His service. This Doctor adds, that “ sacrifice implies the highest degree of consecration.” And this is so
ε Defence of the Doctrine of the to some Things contained in Dr, Church of England, p. 14. Hickes’s Christian Priesthood asserted,
f Answer to Dr. Hickes, p.157.[This ὅτ. &c. was published anonymously, under the title of ““ A Presbyter of the Church of England,” and is called ““ An Answer
London: printed for James Round, at Seneca’s Head, in Exchange Ally, 1709.” It is numbered in the Bodleian Catalogue, 8°. Rawl. 404. ]
CHAP. Il.
272 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
far true, I believe, that nothing could acquire a greater sanc- tity under the Law than by being offered in sacrifice; but I apprehend that the Eucharistical Sacrifice, that is, the repre- sentative Body and Blood of Christ, were, by the primitive Fathers, supposed to be consecrated in a more perfect manner than any sacrifice under the Law could be: for im all the Liturgies, after the oblation of the Bread and Wine as the memorials of the grand Sacrifice, there is a solemn prayer that God would send His Spirit or His Divine benediction for the further consecration of them, after they had first been offered as a Sacrifice to God. And this is the most perfect consecration that inanimate creatures are capable of; and such a consecration does apparently best fit and comport with the Eucharist, as being the most eminent mystery and hier- urgy that ever was instituted by Almighty God. And it is to be observed, that by this means the Eucharistical Bread and Wine are made the most perfect and consummate repre- sentatives of the Body and Blood of Christ. They are not only substituted by His appointment and command to this purpose, but they are by the power of the Spirit, which is communicated to them so often as the celebration of this mystery is repeated, made the lively efficacious Sacrament of His Body and Blood: for the Holy Spirit is Christ’s invisible Divine deputy in His Church. Our Saviour has promised His presence with us to the end of the world, and we know how He fulfilled this promise, viz. by the sending the Paraclete to abide with us forever. The visible material substitutes of Christ’s human nature are the Bread and Wine; and when the Holy Spirit, Which is His invisible representative, com- municates It’s power and presence to the symbols, which are His visible representatives, they do thereby become as full and authentic substitutes as it is possible for them to be; and the reader is to be advertised, that when the ancients speak of the Logos, or the Divine nature of Christ, being present in the Eucharist; or of the Sacramental Body’s being united to the natural Person or Body of our Saviour; they mean the same thing as if they had expressly mentioned the Holy Spirit ; because it is the known opinion of the ancients, and may be proved from Scripture, that whatever beneficial opera- tions are performed in the Church are performed immediately
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD, 273
by the Holy Ghost, and mediately only by the Father and SECT. the Son; and that it is by means of the Spirit that the —~— Church communicates with the other two Divine Persons;
and the holy Sacraments are very justly, by many of our Divines, styled the channels by which all Divine graces are
derived to us.
I now proceed to shew, that it was the judgment of the Proofs that ancient Church, that the Holy Spirit was in an especial ;uy2nce's manner present with the Holy Symbols, to render them the oe Sea spiritual Body and Blood. I will mention but one place consecrated from Theodoret’, which is that where he asserts a “ change Holy Spirit, made by grace” in the Sacramental symbols, and yet pre- sently adds, “Not changing nature, but adding grace to nature.” The words of Cyril of Alexandria* are very full,
“Lest we should be ready to swoon at the sight of flesh and blood lying before us on the Holy Tables of the Church, Christ as God condescending to our infirmities sends an enlivening power into the gifts laid before us, and substitutes them to be, in effect or energy, His own Flesh, that we may enjoy them, so as to partake of their enlivening power.” But St. Chrysostom is most copious on this head’: ‘ When the Holy Spirit sheds His grace, when He descends, and gives the contact to the [gifts] lymg in open view, then do you make a noise and a stir?” Again*, “If we had not the earnest of the Spirit, we could not enjoy the holy mysteries: for the mystical Body and Blood of Christ cannot be without the grace of the Holy Spirit.” And’, “Thou seest Christ, not in a manger, but on the Altar; not held by a woman, but by the Priest, who stands at [the Altar;] and the Holy Ghost most elegantly spreading It’s wings over the [gifts,] which lie in open view.” And™, ‘ This Table fully supplies the place of the manger ; for here the Body of our Lord will lie, not in swaddling-clothes as formerly, but surrounded on all sides by the Spirit. Thou" hast the Body and Blood of the Lord, and the Spirit instead of the letter, and grace exceeding human reasoning, and the unspeakable gift.’ At another place°®, “The Priest stands at [the Altar], not bringing fire
8 i. p. 46. Ap. 1. 7. 1M. p. 42. Ap. bh m. p. 40. Ap. mC, paola ΔῈ, im. p. 39. Ap. 1. 4. ne, p. 38. Ap. 1. 5. ΚΡ. 89. Ap. * h, p. 38. Ap.
JOHNSON. Τ'
CHAP. Il.
274 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
but the Holy Spirit ; and offers a long supplication, not that a torch let down from heaven may consume the [gifts] lying in open view, but that grace lighting upon the Sacrifice may, by that [Sacrifice], kindle a flame in our souls.” St. Augus- tine calls the invisible power of the Spirit, exerting itself in the Eucharist, “the virtue of the Sacrament ;” for, says heP, “the Sacrament is one thing,” viz. Bread and Wine, “the virtue of the Sacrament another,” viz. the efficacious presence of the Divine Spirit ; and again4, “ This is the Bread Which comes down from heaven.—But as to what concerns the virtue of the Sacrament, not as to what concerns the visible Sacrament,” or sign; and what this virtue is he clearly tells us in these words, where speaking of the Eucharistical Bread he says that’ “when by the hands of men it is wrought into that visible shape, it is not sanctified into so great a Sacrament but by the invisible operation of the Holy Ghost.” Gaudentius, speaking of the Eucharist both as representing Christ’s natural Body, and His collective Body the Church, has these words‘, “As we know that bread is made out of many grains of wheat reduced to meal, and must of necessity be brought to perfection by fire, in this a figure of Christ’s Body is rationally conceived ; for we know, that It is a Body kneaded together out of the multitude of mankind, perfected by the Holy Spirit; for He was conceived of the Holy Spirit.” Ephrem Syrus expresses his opinion thus, in his lofty wayt, “It exceeds all wonder, all apprehension, what the only-begotten Christ our Saviour has done for us. For He hath given fire and the Spirit, that is, His own Body and Blood, to be eaten and drunk by us, who are clothed with flesh.” He is evidently speaking of the Sacrament, as the reader may satisfy himself, by reading the foregoing words in the Appendix. St. Ambrose teaches the same doctrine in these words’, ‘‘ Christ is in this Sacrament, for it is the Body of Christ; therefore it is not corporeal but spiritual meat. Wherefore the Apostle says concerning the type of it, ‘Our fathers eat the spiritual food, and drank the spiritual drink :’ for the Divine Body is a spirit-
pk, p. 32. Ap. 3. ἃ. p. 31. Ap. 1. 6 ak. p. 32. Ap. τον. 25. Apo LW, R. p. 37. Ap. " Kk, p. 27. Ap.
~
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 275
ual Body. The Body of Christ is the Body of the Divine Spirit: for Christ is a Spirit.” His argument proceeds thus: the Sacramental Body of Christ must be a spiritual Body, be- cause His natural Body is so; His natural Body was formed and sanctified, and had in It a quickening power, by virtue of the Holy Spirit; therefore His Sacramental Body must receive all It’s excellencies from the same Spirit. He sup- poses that when St. Paul calls the Eucharistical Body “the spiritual meat,” he means it of the spiritual powers and effects which belong to It; and that therefore the Israelites did not eat the Body of Christ in the same manner that we do in the Sacrament; they did it only in an umbratile and faint type, but Christians do it in a more effectual and lively manner; they did eat “the same spiritual meat,” but they did it by a bare cold type, which perhaps they themselves might not understand ; the Church of Christ does it in such a represen- tation, as is only not the original. Gregory Nyssen, speak- ing of the Eucharist, says*, “It is necessary to receive the enlivening power of the Spirit in a way naturally possible; but it is the Divine Body [of Christ] only that has received this grace. We ought to consider how it is possible, that this one Body, being shared among so many myriads of believers —should remain entire,’ &c. This explains the words of Optatus, who speaking of the Donatists’ breaking the Altars in the Catholic Churches, says, ‘‘ What sacrilege is equal to that of breaking the Altars, on which the Holy Ghost descended?” ‘This is evidently Epiphanius’s meaning in that place’, ‘‘ The power of the Bread is enforced; so that Bread is not our strength, but the power of the Bread; what is eaten is indeed Bread, but the power or the force of that Bread is to vivification.” He says the same of Baptismal water ; and by the power of the Bread he means the same that St. Augustine does by the “ virtue of the Sacrament.” This shews what St. Gregory Nazianzen means, when he said?, that “by the un- bloody Sacrifice we communicate of the Passion of Christ, and the Divinity ;” and when he calls the Altar “the Table that receives God.” For by the Divinity we are not to understand 1.14, ἣν UP
T2
SECT.
1 Cor: x522
276 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
= the Divine nature of Christ. For it does not appear that the —— ancient Church thought that believers received that in any sense, but only as the union betwixt Christ and His Church is by means of the Holy Spirit’s presence in the Sacraments. Cyril of Jerusalem gives us the sense of himself and of his Church, expressed in the Liturgy which he used‘, “We beseech God, Who is a lover of souls, to send down His Holy Spirit on the [gifts] laid in open view, that He may make the Bread the Body of Christ, the Wine the Blood of Christ. For to whatsoever the Holy Ghost gives a contact, that thing is consecrated and changed.” This lets us into the meaning of St. Ambrose‘, when he calls the Sacramental Bread “a spiritual Body,” and “the Body of the Divine Spirit ; and also of Julius Firmicus*, when he says, “ Christ delivered to His Disciples the substance of majesty ; which he presently after calls the “ grace of the salutary food,” that is, the holy symbols ennobled by the peculiar presence of the Spirit, and thereby made the Body and Blood in power and effect. And this is what Gelasius Bishop of Rome calls “the Divine thing,” in that celebrated place cited by all that write against transub- stantiation ; and which, though I have not in my Appendix, as being written in the latter end [A.D. 488.] of the fifth century, I will here subjoin. Certe Sacramenta que sumimus Corporis et Sanguinis Christi Divina res est, propter quod et per eadem Divine efficimur consortes nature, et tamen esse non desinit sub- stantia vel natura Panis et Vini. Et certe imago, et similitudo Corporis et Sanguinis Christi in actione mysteriorum celebran- tur.—In hance scilicet in Divinam transeunt, Spiritu Sancto perfi- ciente, substantiam, permanente tamen sue proprietate nature. (In Tractatu contra Nestorium et Eutychem‘.) In English thus; “The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ are certainly a Divine thing; for which reason also, by means of them, we are made partakers of the Divine nature, and yet the substance or nature of the Bread and Wine continue ; and certainly an image or similitude of the Body and Blood of Christ is celebrated in the mysterious actionThey [the Bread and Wine] pass into a Divine substance, their proper nature remaining by the efficacy of the Holy Ghost.” He © f. p. 19. Ap. f [Vid. Heroldi Heresiologia, p. 689.
aK. p. 29, Ap: Basil. 1556. ] © p. 18. Ap. l. 15.
ae δ - τὶ
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 277
cannot be in common equity understood to mean that the elements are changed into the Deity; but that the Bread and Wine, which he affirms to remain, do by the operation of the Spirit become the Body and Blood in power as well as name. St. Athanasius witnesses the same doctrine in these cele-
SECT. L
brated words’, “ Christ predicates of Himself both Flesh and John vi.
Spirit, and distinguishes one from the other, that believers may learn what of Him is visible and what invisible; for what He says is not carnal but spiritual. For how many (rather how few) would His Body have satisfied, if It had been to be eaten, that this should be an entertainment for the whole world? Therefore He reminds them of the Son of Man’s ascent into heaven, that He might draw them off from corporeal notions, and that they might learn, that the Flesh spoken of was heavenly spiritual food, given by Him. ‘For what I have spoken of, says He, ‘is Spirit and Life; as if He had said, the [Body] Which is shewed and given for the world shall be given for food, so as to be spiritually distributed to or in every one, as a preservative to the resurrection of eter- nal life.’ This is an unanswerable evidence against trans- substantiation : for it proves, that Christ never intended to give His visible Body to be eaten. He calls the Sacramental Body “heavenly spiritual food,” as several others do, and as he himself has done at another place, as we shall hereafter see. He asserts, that It is to be distributed to or in every Christian, which can be understood of His Eucharistical Body only ; that It is a preservative to a happy resurrection, which was what the ancients generally believed of the Sacramental Body and Blood. This Sacramental Body is said to be That Which was given for the world, not only because It is a per- fect representation of It; but because our Saviour, in offering the symbolical Body, did intend to consign His natural Body to the cross; and from the whole we may conclude, that when he calls It “ spiritual food,” he means food that has a vital power communicated to it by the Spirit ; which he afterwards explains, by calling It “a preservative to the resurrection,” &e. St. Cyprian says, “ what is taken [in the Sacrament] profits not the unworthy; and that even the salutary grace is turned into dust or ashes, the sanctity departing from it.”
6 a. p. 17. Ap. a fe pelle:
CHAP. I.
278
THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
He calls the material Eucharist “salutary grace,” on account of the presence of the Holy Spirit ; and by the “ sanctity” he can mean nothing but the Divine benediction thereby conferred. Origeni speaks “of loaves being made a certain Holy Body by prayer, and sanctifying them that use them with a sound intention :” and we have before heard him declare, that no- thing is sanctified or made holy but by the Spirit. Clemens Alexandrinus does not often speak plainer than in the follow- ing words), “The Blood of the Lord is twofold, the one carnal, Whereby we are redeemed from destruction ; the other spiritual, by Which we are anointed. To drink of the Cup of the Lord is to partake of the Lord’s immortality; and the power of the Word is the Spirit, as the Blood is of the Flesh : therefore the wine is agreeably mixed with water, and the Spirit with the man ; the mixed liquor invites us to a draught, and the Spirit leads us to immortality; and lastly, the mix- ture of the liquor and the Word together is called the Eu- charist,”’ that is, “laudable and eximious grace.” He does expressly distinguish between the natural or carnal and the Eucharistical Blood ; he says, that by the latter Christians are anointed or receive the unction of the Spirit, and to this he attributes a principle of immortality; and I shall in the — Second Part shew at large, that the ancients did believe the Eucharist to have this power. He supposes the Word, that is, the consecration, to give this power to the symbols, and that It gives it by the efficacy of the Spirit ; for “the power of the Word is the Spirit.” He plainly speaks all this of the Eu- charist, and interprets this name, so as to make it denote the spiritual grace with which it is attended; and though none of the other very ancient Fathers do give this etymology
of the word Eucharist, yet Isidorus Hispalensis does, in his
book Originum et Etymologiarum, vi. c. 19*; and all the ancients own the thing, viz. that the Eucharist is made what it is by the operation of the Spirit, though they do not give us
ia. p. 9. Ap.
J Ὁ. Ὁ: 7. ἌΡ;
k [“ Sacrifictum dictum, quasi 56- crum factum: quia prece mystica con- secratur, in memoriam pro nobis Do- minicz passionis: unde hoc, Eo ju- bente, Corpus Christi et Sanguinem dicimus, quod dum sit ex fructibus
terre sanctificatur et fit Sacramentum, operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei, cujus panis et calicis sacramentum Greci Eucharistiam dicunt, quod Latine bona gratia interpretatur. Et quid melius Corpore et Sanguine Christi ?’’—Isid. Hispal. Opera, p. 52. ed. Col. Agripp. 1617. ]
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 279
. this derivation of the word ; but none does more plainly speak this truth of the Holy Spirit’s power and presence with the symbols, than St. Irenzus in those words', “ Earthly bread receiving [the benefit of] the invocation of God is no longer mere bread but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthly” [viz. the Bread], “and a heavenly” [viz. the power of the Spirit]. So Irenzeus explains himself”, in these words, viz. “ What is earthly ? The body. (Plasma.) What is hea- venly? The Spirit”.” And again®, “ When the mixed cup and the natural bread receives the Word of God, it becomes the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ.” He repeats this again in the same chapter, in almost the same words. The admirable Dr. Grabe by the Word of God here under- stands the same with “the benefit of the invocation” in the former citation ; just as if he had said, the Divine power or Spirit P, and I have no objection against this opinion ; but if you suppose he meant the Divine nature of Jesus Christ, yet his meaning is the same ; for by having the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist, we have in effect the Logos, Whose authentic repre- sentative the Spirit is, and by the means Whereof we alone can have union with the Logos. Or if by the Word of God we mean the words of institution or consecration, the sense is much the same; considering as has been said in the citation from Clemens Alexandrinus, that ‘‘ the power of the Word is the Spirit ;”’ and that the Spirit is the “ heavenly thing” men- tioned in the first citation from St. Irenzeus. This I take to be the meaning of St. Justin Martyr, when he speaks4 “ of the food which is eucharistized by prayer—being made the Body and Blood of Christ.” (I designedly omit λόγου τοῦ map’ αὐτοῦ, because they are either mis-written or exceed- ingly obscure); for by “the Bread eucharistized by prayer” he plainly means the Bread over which prayer had been made, that the Holy Ghost might descend upon it, according to the forms of the ancient Liturgies ; and when Irenzus, ac- cording to the Latin translation (which is far from being nice), mentions the Bread’, in quo gratie acte sunt ; there is
1 ἢ p. 5, 6. Ap. 1. 27. ° g. p.6. Ap.
ΒΟ Ὶ; δ᾽ c. 9. P [Note 1. p. 400.1 » [* Quid est ergo terrenum,? Plas- 4 a. p. 2. Ap.
ma. Quid autem celeste? Spiritus.” ¥ f. p. 5. Ap.
—P. 412.]
SECT. τ
280 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
CHAP. no’ reason to doubt, but that in the original Greek it was
ἄρτος εὐχαριστηθεὶς, ‘ the eucharistized Bread, or the Bread blessed by the invocation of the Spirit, or however made the Eucharist by reciting the words of institution. And I be- lieve this truth is imported in the words of St. Irenzeus’s translator, which are omitted in my citation from him‘, from book iv. c. 34, offerimus enim Ei que sunt Ejus, congruenter communicationem et unitatem predicantes Carnis et Spiritus, that is, “we offer to God what is His own, agreeably here- unto declaring the unity and communion of the Flesh and Spirit.” This holy man is arguing against the heretics, who denied bread and wine to be the creatures of God, and yet acknowledged that they were to be offered to Him, and that they became the Body and Blood of Christ; and yet they denied a resurrection. Now St. Iveneus’s argument runs thus; how can they believe that Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are none of God’s creatures? Or that our bodies shall not rise again, when they are nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ? “'There- fore,” says he, “let them cease from making their oblations, or let them alter their judgment; but our judgment is agreeable to the Eucharist, and again the Eucharist con- firms our judgment ; for we offer to God what is His own, agreeably hereunto declaring the unity and communion of the” Eucharistical “Flesh and Spirit.” Whereas it was in- credible, that God should communicate the Spirit to the Eu- charistical Bread and Wine, if they were not His creatures, but made by another God than He Who was the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ; and then he proceeds to shew, how the Eucharistical Body of Christ, receiving the illapse of the Spirit, was a means of immortality. Dr. Grabe supposes that the Greek transcribed from John Damascene is to be corrected by this old translation; but the Greek words are capable of a very good sense, taking the word éyepow to denote, not the resurrection itself, but “the power” or “ faculty of raising,” which it will very well bear. The Greek words are, ἐμμελῶς κοινωνίαν Kal ἕνωσιν ἀπαγγέλλοντες καὶ ὁμολογοῦντες σαρκὸς" καὶ πνεύματος ἔγερσιν᾽ “ agreeably de-
S f. p. 6. Ap. “The learned Pfaffius will have t [p. 327.] πνεύματος ἔγερσιν to signify the con-
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 281
claring the communion and union, and confessing the rais- ing or reviving power of the Flesh and Spirit” of Christ in the Eucharist, of which he was speaking. I am pretty sure this sense is very clear and coherent, and fits both the Greek and Latin; and it is very probable that those three words καὶ ὁμολογοῦντες ἔγερσιν were either omitted by the trans- lator, because he did not apprehend the meaning of ἔγερσις πνεύματος ; or else were turned by him resurrectionem Spi- ritus, which some Latin transcriber (not knowing or advert- ing, that resurrectio was the imperfect rendition of ἔγερσις, and that ἔγερσις had the signification above assigned to it) did omit to render the sense more obvious. And it seems probable at least, that when St. Ignatius wishes the Mag- nesians* “a union of the Flesh and Spirit of Jesus Christ,” his meaning is, that their Eucharist may be always rendered effectual and beneficial, by the union of the Holy Ghost with the Sacramental Flesh of Christ; and this best explains the meaning of this holy Martyr, when he says’, “the Eu- charist is one, the Flesh of Jesus Christ ; the Cup one,” viz. as being animated by one and the same Spirit; and I ap- prehend that this sense is preferable to that which is com- monly assigned; and by this means SS. Ignatius and Ire- neeus speak the same thing; and we may learn from the words of the former, that the presence of the Spirit with the Eucharistical Body of Christ was by him esteemed the grand privilege of the Christian Church, the continuation whereof he therefore prays for at the beginning of this epistle, as a most Divine blessing to the Magnesian people.
And though the early councils had no occasion to give their judgments in a point so unanimously received by the primitive Church; yet when, at the latter end of the fourth century, some took occasion it seems from some words of Origen to say what was thought to have an ill aspect on this doctrine; there was a synod convened at Alexandria, and another in Cyprus, to nip those novel opinions in the bud; and Epiphanius and other good and learned men
junction of the soul, in his 5. Irenzi book he says, “ Egregie hec verba ex- Fragmenta, ὅς. p. 71, and argues plicat Johnsonius—etsi paulisper ab eo against my explanation of these words dissentiamus.’’
in this place in his Dissertat. de Con- =e.p 1 Ap:
secratione, p. 463, 464, margin. Yet Υ g. p. 2. Ap.
in his addenda to p. 71 of his own
SECT. 1:
CHAP. 1;
282 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
would not so easily have been prevailed upon to condemn Origen’s writings, if they had not a great zeal for this and other truths, which Theophilus persuaded them were very much shaken and endangered by some hasty expressions of Origen, or by the wrong construction that others had put upon them. And when, in the eighth century, the Icono- latree seemed to entertain some new notions of the Sacra- mental Body and Blood, it is very observable, how the orthodox Fathers in the synod of Constantinople express their sense of this matter, viz.2, “As the natural Body of Christ was holy, as having been divinely sanctified; so also His adoptive Body [in the Eucharist] is holy, as having been divinely sanctified by the grace of consecration. For this was what our Lord Christ aimed at, that as He had divinely sanctified the Flesh which He assumed by a proper natural sanctification proceeding from its union; so it was His will and pleasure, that the Bread of the Eucharist, as being the unerring image of His natural Flesh, should be- come a Divine Body, being sanctified? by the descent of the Holy Ghost.—Further, the natural animate Flesh of Christ was anointed with the Holy Ghost®. In like manner the image of His Flesh, delivered to us by God, was replenished with the Holy Spirit, together with the life-giving Cup of the Blood, which [flowed] out of His side.”
All the Greek Liturgies, except that of St. Peter, which is but a Latin Missal translated, as the Rev. Dr. Hickes has observed, do contain a prayer for the descent of the Holy
κ᾿. 1. Ap. 1:20, θεόομαι by ‘divinely sanctified ;’ but I
a Here I have omitted to translate τὴν Θεότητα, as not seeing how it can be rendered consistently with the sense. What I suspect is, that it should be written οὐ κατὰ τὴν Θεότητα, and ren- dered, ‘not as to His Divinity,’ which may intimate, that Christ was anointed with the Holy Ghost, not as to His Divine nature but His human only. Learned men complain, that the re- ports of the judgment of the Constan- tinopolitan Fathers are very much ob- scured in the acts of the second council of Nice, from whence only we can take them. The learned reader, in com- paring my translation with the original in the Appendix, may at first sight suppose that I have defectively turned
have this to offer in vindication of this version, that St. Gregory Nazianzen does so understand this word in his Paschal Oration, a good way before the middle of it, where he says, Ἄνθρωπος - - ζῶον TH πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν νεύσει θεού- μενον. And Stephanus, in his The- saurus, cites him for these words, Ἐμὲ θεοῖ διὰ τοῦ Βαπτίσματος.
> The Fathers of the second Nicene council cavil thus against this ex- pression, viz. ‘If it be an image of the Body, it cannot be a Divine Body.’ But I suppose this is sufficiently an- swered above, where I speak of Fir- micus’s ‘Substance of Majesty,’ and Gelasius’s ‘ Divine Substance.’
283
Ghost on the Sacramental Body and Blood, as the learned reader may inform himself by viewing my short transcripts from them in the Appendix; as for instance, St. Chrysostom’s’, St. Basil’s?, St. Mark’s*, St. James’s'. I will only translate the words of the most ancient, viz. St. Clement’s’, “ Look graciously upon these [gifts,] O self-sufficient God, for the honour of Thy Christ; and send down Thy Holy Spirit, the witness of the suffermgs of our Lord Jesus, upon this Sacri- fice, that He may make this Bread the Body of Thy Christ, this Cup the Blood of Thy Christ.” There is nothing of this sort now in the Church of Rome, nor has been for many ages past; but we have no reason to doubt but that the most an- cient Liturgies of that Church had words to this effect, espe- cially because we have above heard Pope Gelasius, at the end of the fifth century, expressly attributing the consecration to the Holy Spirit. And the old Gallican Liturgy is mentioned in a book called Micrologus", written in the eleventh cen- tury, as directing the Priest to say this prayer, “ Come, Holy Ghost the Sanctifier, eternal God, and bless this Sacrifice’. And the old Gallican Missal on St. Germanus’s day has these words), “We beseech Thee, Almighty God, let Thy Holy Word descend on what we now offer to Thee. Let the Spirit of Thine infinite Majesty descend, the gift which Thou hast of old indulged, that our oblation may be made a spiritual ob- lation*,’ &c. And there is no room to doubt but that such like words were used in the Eucharistic Liturgies in the Galli- can Church from the time of Irenzeus, Bishop of Lyons, in the second century, whose writings breathe this Divine truth ; and that Irenzeus learned it from St. Polycarp, who was the disciple of St. John the Apostle. The reason why for so many
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD.
ς ἃ, p. 57. Ap. 1. 10 i See Mabillon, de Liturgia Galli- Dis Sepa y cana, Paris. 1685. p. 43.
e c. p. 56. Ap. } [‘**Descendat precamur, Omnipo- ‘hop. δά. Ap. tens Deus, super hee que Tibi offe- & c. p. 53. Ap. rimus, Verbum Tuum Sanctum; de-
h [**Preedictas orationes, que om- nibus Missis communis erat, de qua Micrologus in cap. ii. ‘composita ob- latione in Altari, dicit Sacerdos hane orationem juxta Gallicanum Ordinem : Veni Sanctificator, Omnipotens terne Deus, et benedie hoc Sacrificium Tuo Nomini preparatum per Christum Dominum Nostrum.’”’ }
scendat inestimabilis glorie Tuz Spi- ritus; descendat antique indulgentize Tue donum: ut fiat oblatio nostra hostia Spiritalis in odorem suayitatis accepta: etiam nos famulos Tuos per sanguinem Christi Tua manus dextera invicta custodiat. Per Dominum.’”’] k Mabillon, ibid. p. 331.
5 ἘΦ T.
284 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
CHAP. ages the Holy Spirit has not been mentioned in the Canon of
i. ___ the Church of Rome seems to be this, viz. that it is utterly
enema τι inconsistent with their notions, since they have thought the doc: ne that the consecration is finished by the words of institution, si of whereas the ancient Liturgies pray for the descent of the Holy Ghost, after the words of institution had been first pronounced. And further, they all pray that the Holy Spirit may make the Bread the Body, the Cup the Blood of Christ, or in words to this effect ; whereas the Romanists believe no Bread or Wine to remain after these words are once spoken, “This is My Body, This is My Blood.” And further, it is evident that the ancients, in praying that the Bread might be made the Body, the Wine the Blood, did in- tend no more than that the Bread remaining Bread might be spiritually and in effect the Body and Blood. The Romanists believe the Bread and Wine to be annihilated, and the Body and Blood by a strange, I know not what, adduction, as they express it, to be brought to the patin and chalice in their stead. So that this judgment of the primitive Church is wholly in- consistent with the doctrine which has of late ages prevailed in that Church ; and they therefore, who will call it Popery, not only calumniate the primitive Fathers and the main body of the best Christians that ever were in the world, but be- tray their own ignorance and want of charity, and do a real honour to the Church of Rome, which she little deserves. I shall only further observe, that as it evidently appears that the ancient Churches of the east, where Justin Martyr lived and Irenzus had his education, where Athanasius was Bishop and Cyril of Jerusalem presided, and the Church of Rome to the time of Gelasius, and of Gaul in the west for several ages after, did consecrate the Eucharist by the inyvo- cation of the Holy Ghost; so it is very highly probable that the Church of Africa did the same. For to omit at present what has been cited from St. Cyprian and St. Augustine on this head, the words of Optatus of Milevis do sufficiently prove this; for he tells us that the “ Holy Ghost descended on the Altars at the prayer or request made for this pur- pose ;” Quo postulatus descendit Spiritus. See the words at large in the Appendix!. And I apprehend that very few
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 285
articles of our holy religion are capable of a more convictive SECT. evidence from antiquity than this, that the Holy Spirit, by —* It’s powerful presence, renders the elements in the Eucharist
the Body and Blood of Christ, not substantially indeed, but effectually, and to all spiritual intents and purposes.
It may not be amiss to observe, that the ancient heretics The old believed this, as well as the Catholic Christians ; thus in the ps ile ‘ dialogue written by Origen or Maximus (for learned men are ‘He.s2° not agreed which of them two is the author of it) against the Marcionites, the heretic owns that the Holy Spirit ἐπὶ τῆς εὐχαριστίας ἔρχεται, “descends on the Eucharist™.” Nay, Theodotus somewhat exceeds the orthodox in this point, in those words, ‘O ἄρτος ἁγιάζεται τῇ δυνάμει τοῦ Πνεύματος", οὐ τὰ αὐτὰ ὄντα κατὰ τὸ φαινόμενον οἷα ἐλήφθη, ἀλλὰ δύναμει εἰς δύναμιν πνευματικὴν μεταβέβληται", that is, “the Bread is consecrated by the power of the Spirit ; the things are not what they appear to be, or what they are apprehended to be, but by the power [of the Spirit] are changed into a spiritual power.” And Irenzus informs us of a legerdemain which the heretic Marcus made use of, whereby to make his follow- ers believe the Eucharist celebrated by him was more divinely consecrated than that of the Catholics? : Marcus “ pretending to eucharistize the cups mingled with wine, and drawing out to a great length the words of invocation, causes them to appear of a purple and red colour, that so the grace [charis| may seem to instil its own [virtue] from the supreme powers by means of his invocation, in this cup; and that those who are present may have a longing to taste of this liquor, to the end that this grace [charis|, as this magician calls it, may distil upon them too.” This was no doubt an apish resem- blance of the Eucharist in the primitive Church; and pro- bably these heretics being told by the Catholics that their sacraments wanted the concurrent power of the Holy Spirit, which extends Itself to the one body, the Church, only, they endeavoured to make a very extraordinary appearance in what they in reality wanted, by this gross imposture. And it may be observed, that they use the very word χάρις, which is by
™ Sect. ii. p. 53. [ed. Wetsten. © Inter opera Clementis Alexandrini,
1673.] p- 800. [ed. Heins. Paris. 1629. Ed.
n [In this and in Potter’s edition, Potter, tom. ii. p. 988.] the reading is τοῦ ’Ovduaros. | P a. p. 3, Ap.
CHAP. I.
On what Scripture this doc- trine was grounded,
286 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
Clemens Alexandrinus and Gregory Nyssen (as gratia by St. Cyprian, Julius Firmicus, and others) applied to the power of the Spirit in the Eucharist.
Now I expect our adversaries should demand upon what authority of Scripture this doctrine of the ancients was grounded; to which I answer, that it seems evident that they thought, when our Saviour blessed or eucharistized the Bread and Wine, the meaning of those words is, that He caused a Divine benediction to rest upon them. It is allowed, I think, by learned men, that εὐχαριστεῖν has the same signi- fication in the history of the institution with εὐλογεῖν ; and it is very evident, that εὐχαριστεῖν as well as εὐλογεῖν is used tran- sitively ; and that therefore, as we render the Greek words, Matt. xxvi. 26, “ Jesus took bread and blessed it ;” so in strict- ness the following words, ver. 27, should be rendered, ‘ He took the cup, and blessed’ or eucharistized ‘it ; and the same may be said in relation to Mark xiv. 22, 23. St. Luke, chap. xxii. 19, 20; and St. Paul, 1 Cor. x1. 24, 25, use the word εὐχαριστεῖν only in relation both to the Bread and Cup ; and therefore, to render these texts so as that they may fully come up to the sense of the Greek, there ought to be the accusative case expressed after the particle εὐχαριστήσας, viz. “He took bread; having blessed” or eucharistized “it, He brake it, and said : for it is certain, the blessing or eucha- ristizing terminates on the Bread. It indeed imports, that Jesus addressed Himself in prayer to God for a Divine bene- diction; but it is clear beyond dispute, that this benediction was to rest on the elements. It was rational to suppose, that the most Divine institution was to be attended with the most eminent benediction ; and it was justly believed that this con- sisted in the immediate presence of the Holy Spirit. In St. James’s Liturgy, the words of institution, in relation to the Cup, run thus‘, “Taking the Cup—eucharistizing it, con- secrating it, fillmg it with the Holy Ghost,” &c. For they, or he, who drew [up] this Liturgy, did take for granted what I now argue for, viz. that εὐχαριστεῖν does import a conse- cration wrought by the grace of the Holy Spirit; and not only the ancient Fathers, but even the heretics of the first ages, as we have seen, allowed this; and the eucharistized
4 g. p. 55, Ap.
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 287
| Bread, in the language of Irenzus and Justin Martyr, is the _ Bread that has by this means been sanctified; and indeed, the Apostle St. Paul does give great countenance to this doc- | trine, in saying, “by one Spirit we have all been baptized / into one Body—and we have been all made to drink into | one Spirit.” For as in the first clause he speaks expressly | of Baptism, so in the other he does, not obscurely, speak of | our drinking the Cup blessed with the Holy Ghost in the | Eucharist. The Rev. Dr. Pelling has well observed, “ that | even the Socinians, who were the most perverse interpreters | of Scripture that ever yet appeared, cannot but acknowledge, _ that the Apostle’s meaning is, that we have drunk of the | Spirit ; and that in this particular they agree with St. Chrysos- | tom ; and that St.Jerome expresses it by ‘ potionati Spiritu’.” | But I conceive the ancients chiefly built their judgment in | this particular on the sixty-third verse of John vi., viz. “It _ is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The | words which I speak unto you, they are Spirit, and they are | Life’ I think it is universally agreed, that these words are | an explication of that mystery which He had spoken so much of in the foregoing part of the chapter, viz. “eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood.” I hope to give my reader satis- | factory proof, before I conclude this book, that this eating and drinking the Flesh and Blood of Christ was by Him meant of the Eucharist only; and that this was the senti- | ment of the generality of the ancients; and so taking this at present for granted, I will only consider how they inter- preted this verse in conformity to that opinion, and applied it to the Eucharistical Body and Blood; and particularly, that by ‘Spirit’ im this text they understood the Sacramental Body consecrated by the Spirit. Mr. Calvin’, upon this verse, takes notice, that St. Augustine so takes these words, as that when our Saviour says “the flesh profiteth nothing” the sense is, the flesh alone profiteth nothing, without the quickening Spirit ; ‘and that by the ‘ flesh’ he understood the Sacramental Flesh, will in due time be sufficiently proved. St. Augustine’s words are, Quid est ergo, non prodest quicguam Caro? Non prodest
τ See Dr. Pelling’s Discourse of the Spiritu conjungi: quod cum re ipsa Sacraments, p. 278. consentaneum est.’’—Calvinus in loco, * [“ Augustinus subaudiendum pu- Opera, tom. y. p. 75. ] tat solam et per se, quia debeat cum
SECT. if
1Cor.xii.13.
CHAP. IL.
288 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
quicquam ; sed quomodo illi intellexerunt : Carnem quippe in- tellexerunt, quomodo in cadavere dilaniatur, aut in macello ven- ditur, non quomodo spiritu vegetatur. Proinde sic dictum est, Caro non prodest quicquam, quomodo dictum est scientia instat. Jam ergo debemus scientiam odisse? Absit. Et quid est scientia instat 2 Sola, sine caritate. Ideo adjunxit, Caritas vero edi- ficat. Adde ergo scientie caritatem, et utilis erit scientia: sic etiam nunc caro non prodest quicquam. Accedat Spiritus ad carnem, quomodo accedit caritas ad scientiam, et prodest plu- rimum'. Cyril of Alexandria expressly says", “Christ calls His Flesh Spirit ;” and he had given the reason for it in the words foregoing, viz. “ He fills His Body with the energy of the Spirit ;” and that He means this of His Body in the Eucha- rist will hereafter be proved. And again*, “Common flesh cannot give life; of this our Saviour is a witness, saying, My Flesh profiteth nothing, it is the Spirit that quickeneth; for since It is the Word’s own Body, on this account It is con- sidered, as giving life, and is so;” and that he means it of the Eucharist, the learned reader may convince himself, by turning his eye to the original. St. Ambrose, as already cited, has sufficiently shewed that he was of this mind: fory he proves the Eucharist to be “the Body of Christ, because It
is the Body of the Divine Spirit.” St. Athanasius has been
already cited, applying this text to the Eucharist, and telling
us? that “by Spirit and life” is meant “the Body given for
the world, and distributed to, or in every one,” &c. And yet he speaks more expressly, if possible, to the same purpose’,
when discoursing of the Eucharist, he says, “the Flesh of the |
Lord is a quickening Spirit.” And Ammonius took it so above a hundred years before him, in those words®, “ What He here calls the Spirit, is the Flesh, replenished with the energy of the life-giving Spirit.” Now considering that these passages in the ancients are so directly for our present pur- pose, to prove that by ‘the Spirit’ here is meant the Sacra- mental Flesh of Christ; and that all that goes before, con- cerning eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood of Christ, relates to the Eucharist, as I am hereafter to shew; we are
‘ In loc. p. 503. ed. Benedict. tom. yk pain
iii. Ἐ ap. 17. Ap. Ἢ, Ὁ». 44. Ap. a bap 17. ΡΟ: * 1. p. 45. Ap. ΡΠ 9. Δ.»
mira
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD.
289 not to wonder, that the Priest and people of these ages did
SECT. ir
expect, that at their prayers the Holy Ghost should com- —_~—\
municate It’s influences to the Holy Symbols. It must be owned, that the meaning of this text is far from being easy or obvious, even though it be acknowledged to be an explication of what goes before. It is indeed no difficult matter for any new interpreter to clap an arbitrary sense upon this place, and make it chime in with his own inventions; but I must declare, that if I had so good light from antiquity, for the explaining other obscure texts of the New Testament, as 1 have for this; and if the writers and the whole Church of the four first centuries did so clearly determine the meaning of any other context, as they do this of the sixth chapter of St. John, I should desire no other help for the understanding the Scriptures of the New Testament, but what I receive from
them ; and indeed we must once for all discard the authority ἡ
of antiquity in determining any controversy, which either now does, or shall ever hereafter depend, in relation to any point of Christianity, if such evidence may not cast the scale when there is nothing to weigh against it but the airy conjectures of modern doctors.
And that the glosses of late interpreters on this verse are but mere conjectures, will, I suppose, be easy to be demon- strated, from the great variety and inconsistence of them. I will take no notice of the Popish or Lutheran commen- tators, but will confine my observations of this sort to those interpreters, who may be supposed to be most in vogue with those of our own country. Mr. Calvin® understands the word ‘Spirit,’ in the first place, to denote the Holy Ghost com- municating It’s influences to our Saviour’s natural Flesh ; and in the second place, by ‘the Spirit’? he understands spiritual construction of Christ’s words. Mr. Beza4, in the
© [“Tenemus nune quomodo caro vere sit cibus, et tamen nihil prosit: nempe cibus est, quia per ipsam parta nobis est vita, quia in ipsa placatus nobis est Deus, quia in ipsa completas habemus omnes salutis partes: nihil prodest, si ex sua origine et natura estimetur (neque enim vitam confert Abrahe semen, quod per se morti est obnoxium) sed a Spiritu accipit unde nos pascat.”—‘‘ Spiritus nomen hic diverso sensu accipit. Sed quia de
JOHNSON.
arcana Spiritus virtute loquutus erat, eleganter hoc ad doctrinam suam trans- fert, quod Spiritualis sit. Nam vox Spiritus in adjectivum resolyi debet. Porro spiritualis vocatur sermo qui nos sursum inyitat, ut Christum, duce Spiritu, fide, non carnis sensu, in ceelesti sua gloria queramus: scimus enim eorum que dicta sunt nihil nisi fide comprehendi.’’—Calv. in loco, tom. y. p. 75. ed. Genev. 1614. ]
4 [“ Et quod hie a plerisque tradi-
CHAP. Il.
290
THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
first place, for the Divine Logos; in the second place, for a spiritual construction. Grotius® by ‘ Spirit,’ in the first place, understands the human soul; in the next place, the actions of it. Dr. Hammond‘ follows Grotius. Dr. Whitbys takes ‘Spirit’ for the Holy Ghost, as given to believers, in both places, without any regard to the Eucharist: for he supposes that Christ intended to inform them, that by eating and drinking His Flesh and Blood, that is, according to him, believing His doctrine, they should attain the Holy Ghost and eternal life. Dr. Clagett, by the ‘ Spirit,’ in both places, supposes our Saviour meant spiritual actions, practising the precepts of a heavenly life, and embracing the promises of happiness. Dr. Samuel Clarke’, though he varies his phrase, yet seems to agree in the main with Dr. Clagett, and par-
- tur, carnis videlicet Christi appella-
tione Humanitatis Ipsius distincte et in sese consideratam hic intelligi, per Spiritum vero Λόγου θεότητα signifi- cari, a qua una (quamvis carnis per fidem nobis spiritualiter communicate interventu) vis illa vivifica proficis- eatur, vere quidem, sed fortasse parum apposite dicitur,’’—‘*‘ I]lud vicissim ve- rissimum est, quod ad rem ipsam atti- net eandem esse statuendam Ejusdem et Unius Christi perceptionem, spiritu- aliter videlicet per fidem, sive in sim- plici verbo, sive adhibitis Sacramenta- libus signis nostrz menti sumenda prebeatur.”’—Beza in Nov. Test., p. 254. ed. Cant. 1642. ]
e [**Res sunt animi, quibus vita zterna comparatur. Diximus ad Matth. xxvi. 41. voce [ΠῚ [spiritus | modo τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν [vim illam que im- perat | significari, modo anximum totum, ut infra xi. 33, xiii. 21. Actor. xix. 21. Atque hoc posteriore sensu hic sumere simplicius est.’’—Grotii Opera, tom. ii. vol. i. p. 508. ed. 1679. ]
f (“And for the other particular of eating His Flesh, He tells them they cannot but know that it is the soul that enliveneth, and not the body; and agreeably, thatit is not the gross carnal eating of His Flesh that He could speak of, when He talked of their eat- ing, and His feeding them to life eter- nal; but certainly a more spiritual di- vine eating, or feeding on Him, which should bring them a durable eternal life; His words, that is, His doctrine being spiritually fed on by them, that is, being receiyed into their hearts, not
only their ears, will quicken them to a spiritual life here, and that shall prove to them an eternal life hereafter; (so S. Chrysostom expounds, [the flesh] that is, the fleshly hearing profits nothing.’’) —Hammond on the New Test., p. 288. ed. 1659. ]
8. (63. (But know that) it is the Spirit (imparted to believers,) that quickeneth (their mortal bodies, Rom. viii. 11.) the Flesh (even of My Body, could you eat It,) profiteth nothing (to that end; now) the words that I speak to you, they are Spirit, and they are Life ; (i. e. they are the means of ob- taining this Spirit and Life by Him.’ )— Whitby in loco. ]
h [**63. No; when I speak to you of the conditions of obtaining ever- lasting life, though I have now ex- pressed them, by eating My Flesh, and drinking My Blood ; yet youhad reason to understand Me of spiritual actions, which do indeed tend to the bettering of the inward man.—If, I say, you would know what things are proper for the improvement of the mind, they are the words that I speak unto you; they are those precepts of a heavenly life, and those promises of eternal life, which I have laid before you.”—Paraphrase on the Sixth Chapter of St. John, p. 37. ed. 1686. ]
i [ 63.— Know that it is of no use to take what I say, in the gross and literal sense; but ye ought always to under- stand Me of spiritual actions, such as improve the soul, and tend to make men better.’’—Clarke’s Works, vol. 111. p. 443. ed. 1738. ]
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 291
ticularly in taking ‘the Spirit’ to signify ‘ spiritual actions ;’ and they are the only two, whom I can at present consult, that seem to agree in their notions on this text, except Grotius and Dr. Hammond; and so from eight writers we have six several senses. Dr. Pelling by ‘ Spirit’ conceives that our Saviour intended to let them know that He spake mystically, and that they were to interpret His words after a spiritual manner, and of a spiritual and Divine way of feeding on Him. Now the only use I make of these glosses is to convince my reader, that when men of the greatest learning and judgment have no compass by which to steer their in- terpretations of the Holy Scripture, they must of conse- quence run wide of the truth, and of each other; and if they do hit on the true sense, it is by mere chance; and I crave leave to say that in this particular they have all missed
of their aim, and given us their own fanciful guesses instead -
of the truth. What makes me bold to say so is, that the primitive Church, as has and shall be seen, was unanimous in supposing that our Saviour here speaks of the Eucharist ; and none of the great men above produced do in this par- ticular agree with them ; and they, who give us a particular explication of the text, do agree that it is to be interpreted of the Holy Ghost accompanying the holy symbols of Christ’s Flesh and Blood. And I hope it will be thought pardonable in me to adhere to the ancients, where they are unanimous, in opposition to all expositors whatsoever, especially in a point, where scarce two of them keep harmony with each other.
But as to the text now before us, though it must be owned to be one of those that cannot be fully understood without close attention and application; yet I apprehend that if we impartially aim at truth, and diligently keep our eye to the analogy and connection of our Saviour’s discourse, we shall with some degree of assurance be able to say what the meaning of these words is. Our Saviour, having staggered His hearers by inculcating upon them the important doctrine of eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, here in the close of His discourse gives them such hints as might for the present serve to quiet their minds, by letting them know that they were to blame, to take what He had said as if it were meant
v2
SECT. I.
CHAP.
ver. 62.
ver. 63.
ver. 48. 50, 51. 53, 54, 57, 58.
2 Cor. iii. 17.
1 Cor.xy.45.
292 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
of eating His natural Flesh and Blood; and to this purpose
- He first says, “ What and if ye shall see the Son of Man
ascend up [into heaven,] where He was before,” will ye not then be convinced, that what I now say of eating My Flesh and drinking My Blood cannot be understood literally of the Body you now see, and the Blood which now runs in My veins? And having intimated to them what He did not mean, He proceeds to explain the phrases of eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, so far as He thought proper or seasonable for the present; and dismisses His hearers as persons that were yet in the state of Catechumens (if I may so say), without informing them what the materials were which He intended to make His mysterious Flesh and Blood; and does not let His Apostles themselves into this secret, until the time came when He did institute the Sacra- ment and Sacrifice; and in the mean time thought it suffi- cient to let them know what was to be the very life and soul of this mysterious Flesh and Blood, viz. the presence of the Holy Spirit; for says He, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth,” or giveth life, which was the main privilege and benefit that men were to receive by eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, as He had before told them, “The Flesh [even of the Son of Man Himself,|” whether natural or Sacramental, nakedly or in itself considered, or alone without the Spirit, as St. Augustine justly understood it, “ profiteth not” toward the obtaining of eternal life: “the words which I have” just now “spoken” unto you, though they seem to import no more than material things to be externally eat and drunk, yet are so to be understood by you as intended to denote somewhat that, though it be of itself very common and of an earthly original, yet shall be replenished with inward force and power from the Holy Ghost, and therefore deserves rather to be called “Spirit and Life” than dead body and effused blood. It challenges the name of Spirit upon the same account that the entire Person of the Lord is called “ Spirit,” and that the human nature of Christ is said to be a
“ quickening Spirit,” viz. because the spiritual principle was
that which was the most prevailing, and derived a dignity to His human nature, and made Him capable of giving life to others. Just so we may say, it is God that is Heaven, or
—
|
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 293
perfect happiness ; it is the soul that is the man: it is pride SECT. or malice that is the devil. For the denomination is often Ξ taken from the greater or more prevailing part or prin- ciple. Therefore Ammonius, the old Christian philosopher ; Athanasius, the most acute Divine of his age; Cyril of Alexandria, one that was inferior to none of the ancients
in good sense and penetration, tell us, that Christ called
His Body [in the Sacrament] ‘Spirit’ in this place, and my reader just now saw them speaking for themselves. It may perhaps seem strange to such readers as are not versed
in the language of the New Testament, that our Saviour should so often, in the foregoing part of the chapter, pro- mise eternal life to them that eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, and yet here expressly say, that “ the Flesh profiteth nothing ;”” meaning undoubtedly the same thing by His Flesh
in the sixty-third verse, that His hearers had done in the other places, viz. mere material flesh, destitute of life, and blood extravasated, and therefore importing death. He ac- knowledges, that such flesh and blood, whether received in substance or in figure, could carry no benefit along with it ;
and therefore here by flesh means, as His auditors did, flesh alone, without any thing to invigorate or give it life and efficacy. But the Flesh and Blood, so often before mentioned
by Himself, are the true Sacramental Flesh and Blood, that were to carry power and virtue along with them, by means
of the presence of the Holy Ghost vouchsafed to them. If
our Saviour had said, “the Flesh alone profiteth not,” I sup-
pose this would have removed all scruple from the minds of
my readers. St. Augustine says, ‘ alone’ is to be supplied ; and
as the authority of the Father is not to be despised, so the reason of the thing and the whole connexion of the dis- course speak St. Augustine’s judgment to be right. And it
may be observed, that no word is so often to be supplied in
the discourses of our Saviour, as represented by the Evan- gelists, in order to make the sense clear and full, as this word ‘ alone’ or ‘ only,’ with its redditive or correlative ‘also’
or ‘chiefly.’ I will give the following instances: “ Lay not up Matt. vi. for yourselves treasures upon earth” only, “but lay up for τρῶν yourselves treasures in heaven” also, or chiefly. “It is not ye Matt. x 20. that speak” alone, “but it is the Spirit of God that’ also,
CHAP. ἯΙ
Matt. xxiii. 9.
ver. 10. Luke xii.
4, 5.
Luke xiy. 19.15: John iy. 21.
John vii.16.
John ν. 31, ΞΡ
ver. 84. 86.
9204. THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
or chiefly, “speaketh in you.” “ Call no man upon earth your” only ‘Father; for one is” chiefly or principally “your Father, even God.” “Neither be ye called” the only or sole “masters; for one is” chiefly “your master, even Christ.” “Fear not them” only “who kill the body; but fear Him” also, or chiefly, “ Who hath power to cast into hell.” “When thou makest a dinner, call not” only “thy friends and thy brethren; but call the poor” also. “Ye shall neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem” only, “worship the Father.” ‘My doctrine is not Mine” only, “but” also “ His that sent Me.” “If Τ᾽’ alone “bear wit- ness of Myself, My witness is not true; but there is another” also “that beareth witness of Me.” “I receive not testi- mony from man,” that is, St. John Baptist, only; “for the works that the Father hath given Me, they bear witness of Me” also. As many more examples of this sort might be produced; but these are sufficient to shew, that this was an ellipsis very familiar to our Saviour, or rather to the sacred historiographers, and particularly to St. John. And upon this supposition, what our Saviour says is this, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the flesh” alone “ profiteth nothing to this purpose; the words which I speak,” or the promises which I make, “are” not only of My Sacramental Flesh, but of the “ Spirit and Life” to be received in conjunction with them. And that this was His true meaning will be more than probable, if it be considered that these words were designed as an exposition of what He had said of eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, so far as He thought proper at present to expla Himself. He expounds what He had said, by hinting to them what it chiefly was which He had promised them under the name of His Body and Blood. For it was that was the difficulty, which most of all gravelled His hearers; therefore He lets them know, that they were not to understand it of His natural Flesh; for that He, as Son of Man, and therefore clothed with His human Body, was to ascend up where He was before, as He was the Son of God; and that they therefore could not come at this natural Body of His; and that by consequence He meant some other thing by His Flesh, which what It was and why to be dignified with that name He did not
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 295
think fit to acquaimt them until after His last Passover. But He in the interim imparts thus much of His mind to them, that the very essence of that Flesh they were to re- ceive was the Divine Spirit; He supposes they might ra- tionally infer thus much from what He had before said ; for He had often told them, that the effect of eating His Flesh should be life; and, says He, “it is the Spirit that quickens” or “gives life.” He could not deny that the thing to be eaten was His Flesh, for this He had over and again affirmed before; nor could He deny, that the eating of His Flesh, as they ought to do, conduced to this end; for He had as expressly declared that by eating this Flesh they should live for ever, as that He would give them this Flesh. It remains, that we cannot in equity conceive our Saviour to intend any thing else by these words, than that the Flesh alone, without the Spirit, profiteth not to eternal life; and that therefore, when He promised His Flesh, He did implicitly and by consequence promise the Spirit too, even that Spirit, Which first quickened His own natural Body in the womb of the Blessed Virgin. I can see no pretence for supposing that it was our Saviour’s direct and primary intention to explain, what He meant by the actions of eating and drinking; nor do I apprehend that His words in the sixty-third verse can rationally be understood of any action performed by us. The “ quickening Spirit” must denote either the Divinity of Christ, or the Holy Spirit, the third Person of the Trinity; for no other Spirit can give or cause life: it therefore cannot import any action performed by man, not even in the most remote or improper way of speak- ing. The Spirit and Life is what is promised, whereas eating and drinking is the action by which that promise, whatever it be, is received, and is not itself therefore that promise. The Flesh which profiteth nothing must be something that is either to be eaten or not to be eaten; but cannot import the action of eating or the forbearance of that action. And if our Saviour does not here directly and primarily explain the sense of eating and drinking, then there is nothing left for Him to explain, but the words Flesh and Blood. And these had been the main subject of our Saviour’s discourse in this chapter; these were the things, to the participation
SECT. ie
CHAP. Il.
That the ancients believed the Eucha- rist to be a mystery.
John vi. 63.
296 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
whereof He invited His disciples; these were the sum and substance of the promise He had made them in the former part of the chapter; and therefore this is what He does in part unvail to them in this sixty-third verse. Indeed there could be no occasion to spend any words upon them, in order to inform them what sort of eating or drinking He meant ; for if once they did in any tolerable measure know, what the feast or entertainment consisted of, their own common sense would presently direct them to the proper manner and method of receiving it; so that, as to myself, I am not only inclined to this interpretation, because it is recommended to us by the judgment of the ancient Church; but because when I consider what our blessed Lord’s intention was, in pronouncing these words, I can apprehend nothing that He could have in His view but only to give His hearers a fair intimation, that the great work and benefit of the Flesh and Blood He had promised them was to be derived from the secret life-giving power and operation of the Holy Spirit. And I think myself bound in common justice to pay the tribute of a grateful acknowledgment to those venerable pri- mitive writers, who have confirmed me in this sense of a very difficult text of Scripture. And without their authority, I should never have dared to speak so freely of the conjectural glosses of modern commentators; which yet rather serve to confute each other than to establish a man in a settled judg- ment concerning this or any such lke text of Scripture. And having thus shewed, that the ancients did believe the Holy Spirit to be in an especial manner present in the Eu- charist, and on what grounds they believed this; I now pro- ceed to prove,
(2.) That the ancients did conceive the Eucharistical Bread and Wine to be mysteries, and therefore spiritually to be dis- cerned on the account of this especial presence of the Holy Ghost, which rendered the Bread and Wine the Body and Blood of Christ, in the sense so often mentioned. And having but just now laid before my reader at large the grounds on which the ancients entertained the belief of the Spirit’s presence in the Eucharist; and particularly proved that those words of our blessed Saviour were directly and primarily intended to give an explication (in part) of what
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 297
is received in the Eucharist ; I think fit not to reserve what I have to offer from Scripture in defence of the judgment of the ancients, until after I have produced their suffrages (as I have hitherto done) ; but to shew that their believing the Eucharist to be a mystery, and therefore to be spiritually discerned, might safely be built upon that text, as interpreted by them. For though I think it very clear that our Saviour’s first mtention was, in some measure, to open to His hearers the nature of that Flesh which He had promised to give them; yet He could not explain this to them so far as He did, but He must at the same time, by very evident conse- quence, let them see that what He had been speaking of was amystery. For He had told them that they were to receive Flesh and Blood; and this, according to the common sense of mankind, must import something that is capable of being received with the mouth; and yet He had affirmed, that the Holy Spirit was the principal thing which He designed, for that “ His words,” or promises then made, “ were Spirit and Life.” And the grossest of His auditors could not surely sup- pose that the Holy Ghost was capable of an oral manduca- tion, or that the “grace of God could be devoured by mouth- fuls,” as St. Augustine expresses it*; for though they might externally eat and drink what was made the Flesh and Blood, yet their teeth could make no impression upon what was in its own nature not subject to corporeal taste or touch. And this was the mystery, which shocked the loose part of His auditory, who hereupon “went back, and walked no more with Him.” They could not conceive themselves capable of eating His natural Flesh and Blood, nor yet comprehend what He meant by giving them Flesh and Blood, which was Spirit and Life. And the ancients believed this to be the mystery couched in the Sacramental Bread and Wine, viz. that they were in substance what they were before, but by the especial presence of the Spirit rendered the Body and Blood of Christ, as carrying with them all the beneficial effects that His natural Body and Blood, influenced and anointed by the Holy Ghost, could have done, if it had been capable of oral manducation. Thus St. Chrysostom explains the sense of the word ‘mystery,’ when he is speaking of the two Sacra- Kn. p. 32. Ap.
SECT. it
ver. 66.
CHAP. I.
298 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
ments!; “It is called a mystery, when we look not at what we see, but when we see one thing, but believe it to be another thing.” And the case is very clear, that since the Sacramental Body and Blood are what they are, by virtue of the presence of the Spirit; and that the secret operations of the Spirit are not to be perceived by our senses; and that therefore the Body and Blood of the Eucharist are such only in an invisible mysterious manner : therefore they are to be con- sidered and received by us, not only outwardly as consecrated Bread! and Wine, but inwardly with the eye and relish of our understanding and judgment ; not only as bare types and figures, but as being in effect, though not in substance, what they represent. And thus St. Chrysostom elsewhere explains himself, speaking of John vi. 63™, “ We should understand all this mystically and spiritually.—‘ They are Spirit, and they are Life,’ that is, they are Divine and spiritual things. What then, is not His Flesh, Flesh? Yes, assuredly. How then does He say, ‘the flesh profiteth nothing ?’ He does not speak this of His own Flesh, far be that from Him ; but of those that took what He said in a carnal sense. But what is it to take Him in a carnal sense? To look merely to the [gifts] which lie in open view. We ought not to judge by what is seen, but to look on all mysteries with the inward eye; for this it is [to do it] spiritually.” The holy Father does not so directly give us our Saviour’s primary sense, as St. Augustine does, when he says, that by the flesh. which profiteth not, we are to understand “the Flesh only ;” but he rather considers what is the necessary consequence of what Christ here says, namely, that since it is the Spirit which is the principal thing in the Eucharist and That Which makes the Bread the Flesh of our Saviour, therefore we are to apprehend and use it as a spiritual mystery; which by consequence makes these words very apposite to the pur- pose for which I cited him. And when this Father says, that “ Christ could not mean that His Flesh profiteth nothing; but that He speaks of those who took Him in a carnal sense, that is, who regard nothing but the [gifts] lying in open view ;” he means the same thing with St. Augus- tine, when he says, that our Saviour meant, that His Flesh 1D. p. 41. Ap. my, p. 40. Ap.
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 299
“alone” profiteth nothing ; for they who took it ina carnal SECT. sense understood our Saviour of His Flesh alone, without a the Spirit. They minded only what they saw before them. Perhaps, indeed, St. Chrysostom does not express himself with his usual exactness, when he says, “Christ speaks of those who took what was said in a carnal sense.” If, in- stead of these words, he had said, “Christ speaks of His Flesh carnally taken, or taken in a carnal sense,” I conceive he had said the very same thing that St. Augustine does in other words. For if we take the Flesh of Christ in the sense which our Saviour meant It in, ver. 51. 53. 55, no doubt It is profitable ; but if indeed in the sense that His loose hearers took It in, of which He speaks, ver. 63, then It was not pro- fitable. Thus much I have said on this matter, on account of the great difference which Mr. Calvin, on this place, would persuade us there is between St. Chrysostom and St. Augus- tine, which is indeed next to none; but St. Chrysostom speaks of this spiritual mysterious Body and Blood in the Eucharist, in several other places ; and tells us how It is to be received®, “The Word says, ‘This is My Body;’ let us be convinced, and believe, and see Him with our intellectual eyes; for Christ hath delivered to us nothing to be perceived by the senses, but all to be apprehended by the mind, in things perceived by the sense,” viz. Bread and Wine; and again®, “Thou hast the spiritual Table; would you know how? ‘He that eateth My Flesh, abideth in Me.” For I am not sen- sible, that St. Chrysostom is suspected of ever speaking of John vi. to be understood of any other thing but the Eu- charist ; and therefore the Eucharistical Flesh is here called “ Spiritual,” as being discerned by the Spirit only. St. Au- gustine is as clear as St. Chrysostom, when speaking of this Sacrament he 5805}, “ Fix not your thoughts upon the Flesh, lest you be not enlivened by the Spirit ;” and presently after he thus explains John vi. 63, speaking in the person of our Saviour, “ Understand what I have said to you in a spiritual manner; you are not to eat that Body Which you see: I have commended to you a Sacrament; if spiritually under- stood, it will enliven you ;” and again‘, “ Then will the Body
n t. p. 40. Ap. Ps, p. 33. Ap. 1. 19. ° a. p, 37. Ap. q w. p. 34. Ap. 1. 6.
CHAP. Il.
300 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
and Blood of Christ be life to every man, if what is visibly taken be spiritually eaten and spiritually drunk. For we have heard our Lord saying, ‘ It is the Spirit that quickens ;’”” and by this we may clearly understand him, when he bids us’ “eat even to the participation of the Spirit ;” and here 1 apprehend St. Augustine falls in with St. Chrysostom, as above cited. But I shall here also subjoin his words found in Fulgentius, De Baptismo Athiopis, c. ult.s, where he speaks to them that had been lately baptized, and were now ad- mitted to the Eucharist. Quod ergo videtis, panis est, et calix ; quod autem fides vestra postulat instruenda, panis est Corpus Christi, calix Sanguis Christi.—Quomodo est panis Corpus Ejus, et calix, vel quod habet calix, quomodo est San- guis Ejus? Ista, Fratres, ideo dicuntur Sacramenta, quia in eis aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur. Quod videtur, speciem habet corporalem; quod intelligitur, fructum habet spirita- lem. “What you see is the Bread and the Cup; but that in which your faith requires to be instructed is, that the Bread is the Body of Christ, the Cup His Blood.—How is the Bread His Body, the Cup or what the Cup contains, His Blood? these things, brethren, are therefore called Sacra- ments, because it is seen [to be] one thing, it is believed [to be] another. What it is seen [to be] has a bodily figure, what it is believed [to be] has a spiritual fruit or effect.” Where St. Augustine does not only agree with St. Chrysos- tom in other particulars; but in his notion of a mystery, which he calls a Sacrament. And this is a clear proof that the Latin Sacramentum is taken in the same sense with the Greek μυστήριον, though not perpetually. St. Jerome means the same mysterious eating and drinking the Body and Blood in the Sacrament, in those words of hist, “Let us hear, or understand, that the Bread, which Christ brake, and gave to His Disciples, is the Body of the Lord our Saviour.—He is both the convivator and the feast; He eats with us, and Himself is eaten. We drink His Blood, and without Him we cannot drink—we drink new Wine of the Father’s king- dom ; not in the oldness of the letter, but in the newness of the Spirit.” Macarius says", “they who partake of the visible
to. p. 33. Ap. “kK. p: 28. Ap. * [p. 210. ed. Lugd. 1633. ] uR p. 26. Ap. 1.7.
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 301
Bread do spiritually eat the Flesh of the Lord.” Cyril of Jerusalem says*, “ When Christ discoursing with the Jews said, ‘ Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, &c., they not understanding what He said im a spiritual manner were scandalized, and went back, supposing that He exhorted them to be cannibals ;” and he presently tells us how we must un- derstand our Saviour, spiritually, viz. “regard them not as mere bread and wine, but as the Body and Blood of Christ, according to the declaration of our Lord;” therefore he calls them’, “spiritual Bread and Wine;”’ and these again? he calls a “spiritual Sacrifice.” And we have heard St. Athana- sius not only declaring that the Sacraments of the Body and Blood are “spiritual things,” but to be “spiritually distri- buted ;” not as what they appear to be outwardly, but as what they are in internal power and efficacy: and we have seen Eusebius speaking of* “a spiritual hierurgy in Bread and Wine.” ‘Tertullian clearly supposes the necessity of a spiritual communion in the Sacrament, in saying”, “the flesh is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ, that the soul may be replenished with God;” that is, either with God the Holy Ghost, or with the Father and Son by means of the Holy Ghost. And St. Cyprian cannot rationally be otherwise understood, when he says, the Eucharist was “ spiritually injomed,” that is, as a mystery; not to be celebrated or received with the outward senses only, but with the Inward apprehension and application of the mind: and this is what Clemens Alexandrinus teaches us, in those words‘, “ Christ, taking bread, first spake and eucharistized it, then breaking it held it forth, that we might eat it in a rational manner.” These citations are sufficient to prove, that as the ancients believed the consecrated Bread and Wine to be the Body and Blood of Christ, by the invisible presence of the Holy Spirit ; so in consequence of this belief, they looked on them as mysteries, to be discerned and beneficially received with the soul as well as with the mouth; that as the benefit of them was intended for the soul as well as body, so they should be received internally by one as well as externally by the other.
Ρ. 19. Ap. " h. p. 16. Ap. 1. 8. p- 19. Ap. SI. ΒΔ: p19. Ap. 1. ὅ. © dp. 7. Ap.
SECT. as
CHAP. I.
How the Eucha- rist was thought a spiritual Body, and to be spi- ritually received.
302 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
Now before I proceed to another head of discourse, I shall make some reflections on what I have said.and proved, con- cerning Christ’s real Body and Blood in the Sacrament ; and it’s being His real Body and Blood, not in substance, but in spirit and power; and as therefore requiring the exercise of our best faculties, our understanding, judgment, and devotion, regulated and instructed by a true faith, in order to a proper use of it. And,
1. We may from hence learn, for what reason the ancients called the Eucharistical Bread the spiritual Body of Christ, viz. because it was what it was by the peculiar energy of the Holy Ghost? And what they meant by spiritual eating and drinking, viz. doing those outward actions in the Eucharist with a sincere faith in the Passion of Christ, and receiving the symbols, not as bare Bread and Wine, but as Divine powerful representations of the original Body and Blood. And until I am better informed, I shall look upon all other spiritual receiving Christ’s Body and Blood to be a mere human invention of the middle and dark ages of the Church, built upon no other bottom than some passages in the ancient Fathers, misunderstood or wrested by new glosses and un- _ natural constructions. This notion of spiritual eating and drinking Christ in any other religious exercise or action as well as the Holy Eucharist, I look upon as a doctrine, espe- cially as it has of late years been managed, subversive of, or extremely endangering, not only the Eucharist, but the very foundation of all discipline in the Church and even of the Church itself; for it is very certain, that the offering and re- ceiving the Holy Eucharist was intended by Christ Jesus to be the main pillar of the external Christian ceconomy, and the strongest ligament of the mutual communion of Christians with their Head and with each other; but now this notion of spiritual eating and drinking the Body and Blood of Christ cuts the nerves of this and all other means of external com- munion, by assuring men, that they may eat and drink the Body and Blood of Christ at home in their closets and kitchens, as well as at the Lord’s Table. And I apprehend, I cannot do a greater service to religion, than by shewing that this conceit of spiritual communion extra Canam is a mere imaginary thing, without any foundation in Scripture,
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 303
reason, or antiquity. And to this purpose I have shewed my SECT. reader, what the ancients understood by the spiritual Bread Ξ and the spiritual Body, and the spiritual eating and drink-
ing; and it does not appear, that they intended any thing
else but the material Sacrament, enlivened by the Holy Spirit,
and received spiritually by faith as well as bodily with the mouth.
2. If what is eaten be a spiritual Body, and what is drunk How it is be spiritual Blood, then why may not that which is offered be BEE a spiritual Sacrifice, since what we offer is the very same with what we eat and drink? If the very material Sacrifice, which is offered, be accepted by Almighty God, and if He send His Holy Spirit on it, as the ancient Church on good grounds believed He did; why then must it be denied the name of a spiritual Sacrifice ; if it be discerned to be offered as a memo- rial of Christ’s death only by our minds or spirits, I cannot conceive, why it may not be called a spiritual Sacrifice, since on the same account it is also styled the spiritual Body of our Saviour. The ancients called the sacrifices of the Jews and heathen, corporeal and gross fceculent sacrifices, because they who offered them were supposed to have no further meaning than to offer a dead carcase or some such like worthless thing, without any other view or speculation; but they believed the sacrifice of bread and wine, offered by Melchisedec, not to be a corporeal sacrifice ; because they apprehended, that Mel- chisedeec and Abraham, in the oblation of bread and wine, saw and designedly prefigured the Sacrifice of the Christian Church: and with much greater reason then may this Sacri- fice itself be called spiritual; since, as Chrysostom says, “ our Saviour hath delivered to us nothing to be perceived by sense, but every thing to be apprehended by our understanding, though in things perceptible by sense.” It is true, what He delivered was Bread and Wine; but they are to be considered by us as Christ’s Body and Blood, as made so by His Holy Spirit and discerned to be so by ours. And if our adversaries, for the future, cannot contrive some better shelter against our arguments for a real Sacrifice than that pretence of it’s being so often called a spiritual Sacrifice, and that therefore it can- not be a real one; I persuade myself, they will convince but few; and these few must be such as suppose that all words
304 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
CHAP. must in all ages have had the same signification; and that M__ because ‘ spiritual’ in our present philosophy signifies some- thing perfectly immaterial, and in common discourse, some- thing or nothing, according to the fancy of him that uses it ; therefore sixteen or seventeen hundred years ago it could not have any other meaning; whereas in reality the standard of words is as liable to change as that of money, and they that will not be persuaded of this by the authorities [ have alleged from the ancients may be convinced by their own English Bibles, where we have express mention of “a spiritual Body ;” and where the whole Church, consisting of Christian men, is 1 Pet. ii. 5. Called a “spiritual house,” or temple; and it is observable, that in the very same verse the Apostle mentions “ spiritual sacrifices ;” and why the sacrifices must be perfectly imma- terial any more than the men who offer them, will, I con- ceive, be impossible to be shewed. The Church is a spiritual temple, not only as it consists of men united together by one common faith, and by the ties of love and charity; but also, as this union 15 perfected by the common influences of the ch. ii last Same Spirit; for St. Paul tells the Ephesians, that ‘‘ they were dea builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” And why the material Sacrifice of the Eucharist may not be thought one of the sacrifices spoken of by St. Peter, and the principal one too, I cannot for my life conceive; for bread and wine are not more material than human bodies are; and if men clothed with flesh can be framed into a “spiritual building,” then I can see no reason why bread and wine, consecrated by the Spirit, may not be “spiritual sacrifices,” [and yet material. ]
Adistincte 9. By what has been said upon this head we are able to ἐλ Ὁ give a distinct answer to our adversaries, if they demand ask what is what is offered in the blessed Eucharist. We offer the Bread
offered. : : and Wine, separated from all other oblations of the people; we offer them, as having been solemnly pronounced by the words of institution to be the full representatives of Christ’s Body and Blood. And we make propitiation with them, after God has first, by the illapse of the Holy Spirit, perfected the consecration of them. When we say, we offer Bread and Wine, and that we offer the Body and Blood of Christ, we mean the same material things; and I have proved that the
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 305
ancients used the very same language, and by that language sEcT. meant the very same things that we do. When we say we ἡ offer Bread and Wine, we do not only mean the products and first-fruits of the earth, but the memorials of Christ’s _ Passion, the authoritative representations of Christ’s Body and Blood; or, if you will speak with the primitive Church, the true Body and Blood of Christ: and on the other side, when we say we offer the Body and Blood, we do not mean what is commonly called the Sacrifice of the Mass, not the substantial Body and Blood of Christ, much less His Di- vinity ; but the Bread and Wine substituted by the Divine Word for His own Body and Blood, and upon which God, at the prayers of the Priests and people, sends down His peculiar spiritual benediction, by which it becomes a Sacri- fice of a sweet-smelling savour, as being therefore fully con- secrated into the spiritual Body and Blood of Christ, and therefore fit wherewith to propitiate the Divine mercy.
4. From hence we may infallibly conclude, that the an- That the cient Church of the four first centuries did not believe trans- *7en's
believed substantiation, though they expressed their thoughts of the 2° trans-
reality of Christ’s Body in the Sacrament, oftentimes in very aaa strong and lofty expressions. But that they did not believe a ταὶ a change of substance, appears from this, that they called μας βῆ even that which was distributed to the communicants after 2 te it. the consecration was finished, sometimes Bread and Wine,
and at other times figures and types; and though they be-
lieved them to be types, so full and big with the life as to be
justly dignified with the names of the archetypes, yet they inform us, on what account they were called and in some
sense believed to be the archetypes; viz. as by the secret in-
visible operation of the Holy Spirit, they were made in effect,
and to all religious intents and purposes, the very Body and
Blood. And I apprehend that Protestants cannot so effect-
ually answer the allegations produced by the Papists in be-
half of transubstantiation, upon any other scheme as this of
the primitive Church. They who believe the Bread and Wine
to be mere symbols and figures, can never, so far as I am
able to judge, give a fair and satisfactory reply to the objec-
tions, which may be urged against them from Holy Scrip-
ture ; however they will be utterly at a loss to answer those JOHNSON. x
CHAP. ue
306 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
texts, if taken in the sense which the Fathers of the second century, viz. Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Irenzeus, and Tertullian took them in. And I conceive that man ought to suspect his own judgment and orthodoxy, whose opinions sink below the standard of the second age after Christ ; and I see no reason to doubt, but that the notions of the second, third, and fourth centuries, were the same in the main, as to this important head of Christian doctrine and worship; and I might say the same of several of the following ages. It is easy enough indeed for Protestants to prove, that the Church, in these ages, did not believe transubstantiation ; but it can never be maintained that they looked on the Sacramental Body and Blood, as mere figures or symbols; and there- fore I look on this hypothesis as utterly indefensible, as an opinion reprobated by the generality of the first Reformers, embraced only by Zuinglius and (icolampadius and their adherents, who were upon that account called Sacramen- tarians ; and of late advanced by the Arminians and So- cinians with too great success; but utterly inconsistent with the principles of the truly primitive Church, and even with Scripture itself, as has been shewed. The Lutheran doctrine, though it come nearest to that of transubstantiation (for it supposes the grand absurdity of transubstantiation to be true ; which is, that the Body of Christ descends from heaven to many thousands of Altars, at one and the same time; but it denies the other great absurdity of transubstantiation, the annihil- ation of the Bread and Wine) yet in one respect is, I think, altogether worse and less tenable; viz. because it supposes two Bodies and Bloods in the Sacrament, the typical and the substantial. For the Bread and Wine are figures of the Body and Blood; and figures may bear the names of their principals ; and further, together with this typical Body and Blood, they believe they have the very Body and Blood of Christ, which was born of the Blessed Virgin, and shed upon the cross. And indeed the opinion of Calvin, Beza, and their followers, did not come much short of the Lutherans in this respect. For their doctrine too was chargeable with this con- sequence, though they modified their notions in a way some- what different from that of Luther. What is given in the Eucharist and received from the hands of the Minister, they
-
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 307
affirmed to be mere typical, symbolical Bread and Wine; and that the unbelieving or unworthy communicant received no more than mere types and shadows; but then they added, that the faithful and worthy communicant received the very natural Body and Blood of Christ by an act of faith. And they further asserted, that this natural Body and Blood might be received, not only at the Holy Communion, but in any other act of re- ligion ; and though they allowed that the natural Body and Blood were received at the Sacrament, yet they denied that it was received in the Sacrament, that is, in the Bread and Wine, but that it was communicated in a Divine and un- intelligible manner to the faithful only. Now that my reader may be made sensible of the inconvenience of this notion, I will only give him the brief history of the treaty of Poissy, the substance of which I take from the moderate impartial Thuanus*. The managers on the Papists’ side were the Car- dinals of Lorraine and Tournon, Mr. Espencée, and others. On the Protestant side, Mr. Beza, Peter Martyr, ἕο. Lor- raine had charged Beza with saying that Christ’s Body is no more in Cend, ‘in the Lord’s Supper, quam in ceno, ‘than in the dirt we tread on;’ but Thuanus seems to clear Beza of this, by saying that it was only a consequence, which Me- lancthon had formerly in a heat imputed to (icolampadius, by way of objection against his doctrine; which was, that the things received in the Sacrament are mere signs. Beza purged himself from this imputation, and declared his ab- horrence of it, as blasphemous; but Beza himself, though he confessed that believers do as surely partake of the Body and Blood of Christ, as they see and touch and put into their mouths the Sacrament, yet affirmed that the Body of Christ was as distant from the Bread, as heaven was from the earth. This was received with great indignation by Tournon, and so the assembly broke up for that time. Beza excused himself in a letter to the queen regent (who called this congress, and was present at the conferences) by saying, he had not time given him to explain himself; for he owns it would be blas- phemy to assert, that Christ was absent from His Supper, which yet some had charged him for affirming, and which Thuanus seems to say he had affirmed. He owns’, that ἃ Lib. 28. [tom. ii. p. 117. ed. Lond. 1733.] Anno Dom, 1561. © [p. 121.] x2
SECT. L
308 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
CHAP. “this tremendous mystery was instituted by the Son of ᾿ς God, that we may more and more be partakers of the sub- stance of His very Body and Blood; that God was every where present, but that His Body was in heaven, circum- scribed by space and place ;” for which he cited St. Augus- tine, and Vigilius Bishop of Trent five hundred years before. Hereupon the colloquy was renewed, in which Lorraine made a very bright speech, says Thuanus, in which he used the following words‘; “If the Protestants continue in this opi- nion, that Christ is no otherwise upon earth since the time of His ascension than He was before He put on our Flesh; or that He now has any other Body but what is visible ;—or in a word, that to put on Christ in Baptism, and to receive His Body in the Supper, is all one thing; he must retort their own words upon them, and say, that his opinion was as far distant from theirs as heaven is from earth.” Two days after they meet again: Lorraine and his party insist upon a subscription to the chapter concerning the Eucharist in the Augustan, that is, the Lutheran Confession, which had formerly been demanded of the Protestants; and urge an expression of Mr. Calvin’s, intimating the “ substance of Christ’s Body” to be in the Sacrament. Peter Martyr en- deavours to mollify this expression by a gloss of his own, but to no purpose. Then they agreed upon a new method of conference, that this controversy should be amicably adjusted by delegates deputed from each side. After long debates, the Protestant Ministers draw up their judgment in these words’; viz. “ We confess, that Jesus Christ, in the Supper, does truly give and exhibit to us the substance of His Body | and Blood, by the efficacy of His Holy Spirit ; and that we do receive and eat, spiritually and by faith, that very Body — Which was offered and immolated for us, so as to be bone of His Bone, and flesh of His Flesh, to the end that we may | be enlivened thereby, and receive whatever is conducive to our salvation: and because faith, supported by the Word of God, makes those things present which it apprehends, and | by that faith we do in deed and reality receive the true natural Body and Blood of Christ, by the power of the Holy Spirit ; by this means we confess and acknowledge the pre-.
f [p. 122.) © [p. 125.]
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 309
sence of His Body and Blood in the Supper.”—Espencée, SECT. though he did not much dislike the rest, yet could not allow of the last clause, which he said would never be allowed by the Latins, by the West or East, by the Ethiopian or African Church, nor by the Protestants in Germany, that is, the Lutherans; and therefore he proposed, that the last clause should be thus expressed"; “ And because the Divine Word and promise, by which our faith is supported, makes those things which are promised present to us, and by the power and efficacy of the Word, we do in deed and reality receive the true and natural Body and Blood of Christ; therefore we do by this means confess and acknowledge the presence of His Body and Blood in the Supper.” After a debate on this occasion between the Ministers and the delegates on the other side, the Ministers are forbid to appear there any more; which when the Ministers understood, they endea- voured (says Thuanus) to help out their former declaration, by adding what follows; viz. “No distance of place can hinder us from communicating of the Body and Blood of Christ, for the Lord’s Supper is a heavenly thing; and though on earth we receive Bread and Wine” (I think ‘only’ ought to be added) “which are the true signs of His Body and Blood, with our mouths, yet by faith.and the efficacy of the Holy Ghost, our minds which are fed with this food are rapt up into heaven, and enjoy the presence of the Body and Blood; and that by this means it may be said, that the Body is truly joined to the Bread, and the Blood to the Wine ; but after the manner of a Sacrament, and not at all accord- ing to place or natural position; but as they (the signs) do imply, that God does efficaciously exhibit them to faithful receivers, and they do by faith receive them.” Thus the as- sembly was dissolved.
Now this story is very instractive on several accounts. And first and especially it should teach Protestants not to make such concessions to Papists, as Beza and Calvin before him had done; (and indeed Calvin had subscribed the Au- gustan Confession ;) I mean, to acknowledge that Christ’s Body is substantially present in or at the Sacrament. It is plain that Beza, according to his hypothesis, might either
h [p. 126.]
CHAP. Il.
310 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
deny or assert this. For he believed It not to be present m the Bread or Wine, or by virtue of any thing done in the Eucharist only; but he believed It present to believers, by means of their faith, in all religious actions, and therefore in the Eucharist as well as in Baptism, prayer, &c. To wipe off the aspersions cast upon him, he declares the sub- stance of the Body and Blood to be received by the faithful in the Supper ; and so was caught in his own net, from which he found it impossible to extricate himself. For by his ex- planations he only further involved himself; if the reader can penetrate into his meaning, I must confess it is more than I can pretend to do. The case is very plain; if Christ’s natural Body and Blood be received either in the Sacrament, or any where else on earth, it must be done either by having that Body and Blood brought down from heaven to us, or by our being assumed into heaven and being brought mto the presence of that Body and Blood, or by our meeting them in some third place; but all these three suppositions are equally absurd, and there is no fourth to be imagined. Beza and his friends, to avoid the known difficulties ‘of the first supposition, ran themselves aground on the second. Secondly, from this we may learn that the primitive Church asserted nothing so harsh and incredible, in relation to the reality of Christ’s Flesh and Blood in the Eucharist, as either the Lutherans or Calvinists, who are the two main bodies of Protestants. I am not sensible that any single Father ever asserted, for the first four hundred years, that Christ’s per- sonal Body and Blood can be substantially present to us here on earth. Even Gregory Nyssen, who goes farther, I think, than any had done before him, never supposes Christ’s natural Body to be brought down from heaven to the com- municants ; but rather, that the Bread of the Eucharist was, by addition, converted into His true Body, if I understand him right. They call the consecrated Bread, a Divine hea- venly thing or substance, but they do not call it the sub- stance of the Body of Christ; and they call it a Divine sub- stance, because they believe it sanctified by the Holy Ghost. They call the Sacramental Bread and Wine the true very Body and Blood, meaning, that it was so in power and efficacy, as has been shewed. They believed it to be the very Body
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 911 and Blood, not by a bare figure or metaphor, just as Christ is SECT. called the Passover, the Vine, the Way, and the Door; but ae by way of a lively mystery, which though it do not come up to the original, is yet far above and beyond all other types and representations, and specially all tropes and lifeless figures and emblems. But it does not appear to me, that ever they thought of receiving the natural Body of Christ, as both Papists and Protestants asserted they did, at this treaty; but I shall further vindicate the ancients, when I come to speak of their seeming excesses on this head. Thirdly, from hence we may see where the stress or knot of the controversy between the Papists and Calvinists then lay. The question truly stated was not, whether the sub- stance of Christ’s Body were capable of being received; this was allowed on both hands; but, whether that thing, which was given by the Priest, and received by the communicants, was the very substantial Body of Christ; and if the question had been thus proposed, as I humbly conceive it ought to have been, there could have been no room for a treaty ; but the Calvinists must once for ever have denied it, and the Papists affirmed it. But the present project at court was to reconcile contradictions, and to accommodate matters so far, if possible, as to brmg the two contending parties to sub- scribe one certain form of words in two different senses, and to make them in appearance say the same thing, when their thoughts and meanings were directly contrary to each other ; and therefore palliative expressions, and ambiguous circum- locutions were made use of: and upon this occasion, I think fit to present to my reader, in one short view, the true state of the questions now depending between the Protestants and Papists, in relation to the matter of the Sacrament, or the thing or substance there received. 1. Whether there are two Bodies of Christ to be received Dispute be-
. = : -_ tween Pro- in the Sacrament, or only one? The Lutherans‘ and Calvin- ¢extantsand
i The Lutheran notion of the Real Presence being very subtle, and the Lutheran books not much read among us, I thought fit here to set it down.
First in the words of Luther himself, as they stand in his Cogitationes MS. CCCcc,
“ Nostra autem sententia est, Corpus
ita vel in pane esse, ut revera cum pane manducetur; et quemcunque mo- tum vel actionem panis .habet, eun- dem et Corpus Christi; ut Corpus Christi vere dicatur ferri, dari, accipi, manducari, quando panis fertur, datur, accipitur, manducatur. Id est, Hoc est Corpus Meum.”
CHAP. IL. Papists stated.
312 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
ists, if they will speak the truth, without reserve or palliation, must say there are two Bodies there to be received, the typi- cal Body of Bread, and the substantial Body of Christ Him- self. The Papists assert, there is but one Body of Christ in the Sacrament ; and so far they are right. But then they add, that this is the very substantial Body ; and in this their gross error consists. The Arminians and Socinians agree with the Papists, in asserting but one Body of Christ in the Sacrament ; but then they err in the contrary extreme ; for they believe it to be a bare typical figurative Body only.
2. Whether the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood be received from the hands of the celebrator? Both the Papists and Lutherans affirm that they are; the Calvinists and Arminians and Socinians deny it; the former add, that the believer receives This by faith. The Arminians and Soci- nians deny that they can be received at all.
3. Whether the only matter or substance given by the celebrator be the substantial Body and Blood? The Papists affirm this; for they say, that the accidents of bread and wine only remain, but the substance of them gives way to
Next from Gerhard, in loc. Theolog. de Sacr. Coena, cap. x. ὃ 69. [tom. v. p. 55.ed. 1657.] “ Credimus in Eucha- ristiz Sacramento veram realem et substantialem Corporis et Sanguinis Christi preesentiam, exhibitionem, man- ducationem, et bibitionem. Que pre- sentia non est essentialis conversio pa- nis in Corpus, et vini in Sanguinem Christi, quam transubstantiationem vo- cant: neque est Corporis ad panem, ac Sanguinis ad vinum extra usum Coene, localis aut durabilis affixio; neque est panis et Corporis Christi personalis unio, qualis est Divine et humane nature in Christo unio; neque est localis inclusio Corporis in panem ; neque est impanatio; neque incorpo- ratio in panem, qua panis eum Corpore Christi et vinum cum Ipsius Sanguine in unam massam physicam coalescat ; neque est naturalis inexistentia ; neque delitescentia Corpusculi sub pane ; ne- que quicquam hujusmodi carnale, aut physicum: sed est prasentia et unio Sacramentalis, que ita comparata est, ut juxta Ipsius Salvatoris nostri veracis sapientis et omnipotentis institutionem, pani benedicto tanquam medio itidem divinitus ordinato Corpus, et vino bene-
dicto tanquam medio divinitus ordi- nato Sanguis Christi, modo nobis in- comprehensibili, uniatur; ut cum illo pane Corpus Christi una manducatione Sacramentali, et.cum illo vino San- guinem Christi una bibitione Sacra- mentali in sublimi mysterio sumamus, manducemus, et bibamus. Breviter non ἀπουσίαν absentiam, non ἐνουσίαν inexistentiam, non συνουσίαν consub- stantiationem, non μετουσίαν transub- stantiationem, sed παρουσίαν Corporis et Sanguinis Christi in Ccena statu- imus.”’
In Form. Concil. Art. vii. dicitur “Corpus et Sanguinem Christi non tan- tum spiritualiter per fidem, sed etiam ore, non tamen Capernaitice, sed super- naturali et ccelesti modo, ratione Sa- cramentalis unionis cum pane et vino sumi.”’
In this form, Concil. p. 753, the Cor- poral Presence is denied: which yet is thus explained; that the Body of Christ is received with the mouth, yet in a spiritual manner. By which they run into the Popish absurdity of a Body’s being present in a spiritual manner. See Pfaffius, p. 461, 462. [This note was added in 2nd ed. }
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 918
the adduced substance of the Body and Blood. The Lu- sect. therans assert that the Sacrament consists of the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood, together with the substance of Bread and Wine. The Calvinists, Arminians, and Socinians deny that any substance is given by the celebrator, except that of Bread and Wine.
And I will here subjom the judgment of the ancient Church, in relation to the questions above proposed, accord- ing to the best of my information.
1. As to the first question, the primitive Church believed, as the Papists, Arminians, and Socinians do, that there is but one Body, one Blood of Christ in the Sacrament. This Body and Blood the primitive Church sometimes called the true and very Body and Blood, as the Papists also do; and sometimes the typical or symbolical Body and Blood, as the Arminians and Socinians now do. But they did not mean these words in the same sense, either with the Papists on one hand, or with the Arminians and Socinians on the other.
2,3. As to the other two questions, the ancient Church did not believe that the true substance of Christ’s Body and Blood was given by the celebrator, or by any other means, either with or without the Bread.
But then there is another question, which was never to my knowledge proposed or disputed, either between the Papists and Protestants, or among the Protestants themselves ; and that is,
Whether the Body and Blood given by the celebrator in the Eucharist be the true Body and Blood of Christ in real substance, or only in spirit and power. And every body knows, how the Church of Rome must answer this question, or rather how she has answered it; though it was never for- mally and in express words proposed to her. For the sub- stantial Presence of the Body and Blood in the Sacrament is one of the new articles of the Tridentine Creed ; and in this particular the Church of Rome has decided the cause, not only contrary to reason and common sense, but also contrary to the primitive Church ; which, as has been shewed, believed the Bread and Wine to remain, and that they were the true Body and Blood of Christ, by virtue of their true spiritual consecration ; and therefore, though they called them types,
CHAP. Il.
The advan- tage of the primitivs doctrine be- yond those both of the Calvinists and Lu- therans.
314 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
as believing them to be bread and wine, and not the very Life itself, yet they called them too the true Body and Blood, for they believed them to be so in power and efficacy.
What opinion Protestants may now have of this judgment of the ancient Church, I cannot so much as divine; but I am very sure it had been very happy, if the great leaders of the Reformation had been pleased to take such light, as antiquity would plentifully have given them in this particular; and would have leaned less to their own judgments, and more to the sentiments of the primitive Church, in interpreting the texts of Scripture relating to this subject; and by this means there would not only have been a better harmony between Protestants themselves, the great want of which is the scandal of the Reformation; but they would have been enabled to give more full and satisfactory answers to such objections, as Papists or other adversaries alleged against them; and at the same time have promoted the two most valuable things on earth, truth and peace. The Reformers were very far from being strangers to the writings of the primitive Church and the ancient Fathers; nay, they were very diligent in searching for authorities from antiquity, whereby to confute the errors of the Church of Rome; but the leaders of the Reformation abroad seem rather to have made use of the weapons which the ancients put into their hands, for the destruction of the Popish cause, than of the materials and models which antiquity would have afforded them, for build- ing up their own Churches and systems of divinity. How- ever I will not despair of some success among the Clergy and people of our own Church, when I am recommending that scheme of the doctrine of the Eucharist which prevailed for so many hundred years next after the Apostles. It is commonly said, and I think truly, that the Church of Eng- land has not declared for any particular modus of the Presence of Christ’s Body in the Sacrament. We are indeed instructed by the Church, that “ Christ’s Body and Blood are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Sup- per ;” but whether substantially, or in power or efficacy only, is not determined: and I am not without hopes, that those of our Church, who have senses exercised, and who have any regard to antiquity, will embrace this doctrine; not only as
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 315
more consistent with reason than either that of the Luther- ans or the Calvinists, but because it comes recommended to us by the venerable stamp of the primitive Church. As for those who have no notion of any thing in the Sacrament be- yond that of a mere significant ceremony, a shadow, or sym- bol, they ought to consider that they stand condemned, not only by the voice of our own Church, but of all duly consti- tuted Churches that are or ever were ; as may be seen in the Right Reverend Bishop Cosin’s History of Transubstanti- ation: and 1 persuade myself, that they have none with them, even in this most degenerate age, excepting the Armi- nians and Socinians, and such writers as they will be ashamed to own in the presence of competent judges. I am apt to think, that one great occasion of the growth of these loose opinions concerning the Eucharist has been the great absur- dity and apparent inconsistence of those hypotheses, which have of late ages prevailed in the Christian Church, in rela- tion to this article of Christianity. Transubstantiation is pro- verbially irrational; consubstantiation comes not much be- hind it; and the spiritual Presence, as explained by Beza and his associates, is as unintelligible as either of the former. And it is very hard for men, if they be in any measure inquisitive, to believe any thing that is mysterious, without having some fixed and certain idea concerning the manner of it; because without this they know.not how to distinguish between mys- tery and nonsense, and because without knowing the modus they really know not how to argue or reason concerning it in their own minds, or to discourse of it to others. And when all the commonly prevailing moduses of Christ’s Body being really and truly received in the Sacrament are so very harsh and incongruous, it is not much to be wondered, if in a free- thinking age men rather choose to believe that Christ’s Body is not at all in the Sacrament, than that It is there in the manner, which the Papists or Lutherans or Calvinists con- ceit it; or than to suppose that It is there, they know not how. But I have reason to think, that the reality of Christ’s Body in the Sacrament, as to Its spiritual power and effect, will meet with a tolerable reception, at least from all candid and impartial sons of the Church, that rejoice to see primitive Truth unclouding itself and shewing its reverend face.
SECT. I.
CHAP.
The opinion concerning two per- sonal Bodies of Christ.
316 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
Fifthly and lastly, by reflecting on this doctrine of the primitive Church concerning the reality of Christ’s Body in the Sacrament, and the spiritual mysterious manner of It, we may see upon what slight grounds some particular learned men amongst us have advanced a notion of Christ’s having two personal Bodies, a carnal and a spiritual one; that the carnal Body cannot be received, but the spiritual may. This opinion is maintained by the worthy and learned Dr. Pelling, in his Discourse of the Sacrament. He calls these “two naturesj,” and cites Irenzeus for saying the Eucharist “ con- sists of two things, a heavenly and earthly.” The ‘heavenly’ he supposes to be the “ spiritual Body ; but I have shewed, that by the heavenly thing he means the power of the Holy Spirit. He cites Origen at the same place, for distinguishing “the symbolical body” from “the Word Which was made Flesh.” This last he calls His human nature; whereas “ the Word made Flesh” includes His whole entire Person; and by the “ symbolical Body,” he rightly understands the Bread in the Eucharist. Then he cites Tertullian for saying “ Christ represents His Body by Bread.” How the Doctor would prove his point from these passages, I cannot so much as guess. Then he quotes St. Augustine from Gratian, who very often corrupts and misrecites that Father’s writings. And yet St. Augustine, as there cited, says nothing, but that there is in the Eucharist “the visible species and the in- visible Flesh and Blood;” which rather countenances the Papists’ than the Doctor’s notion. He cites St. Chrysostom directly against his own opinion, viz. Et non duo Corpora, sed unum Filit Corpus predicatur. He also observes, that the Fathers of the second Nicene council determined, that after consecration “the Bread and Wine are rightly called the Body and Blood; but why,” says he, “must this be meant of Christ’s natural Body, and not of His spiritual?” Yes, if he had proved, that Christ had such a personal spiritual Body, distinct from His natural; but that is the point in question. “The Body of Christ,’ says he, “ may be considered either in respect of It’s own natural substance, consisting of flesh, bones, and blood; or else with respect to His Divinity, as That is united with It, as It is replenished with the presence
ip. 198. ΚΠ:
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 317
and energy of the Godhead, and fills all things with spiritual rays.” This supposes but one Body of our Saviour, but only diversely considered; and yet he expressly calls this “a dis- tinction between His natural and spiritual Body™.’” The Doctor says ‘the primitive Christians imsisted much” on this distinction; cites Clemens Alexandrinus"; but I have elsewhere shewed, that Clemens, by the “spiritual Blood,” meant the Eucharistical Blood ; and that he himself in effect tells us so. He cites St. Jerome for saying, “The Blood and Flesh of Christ is capable of a double meaning, either that which He speaks of (John vi.) or that Flesh and Blood which was crucified and let out by the soldier’s spear.” I doubt not but St. Jerome means the Eucharistical, and the natural Blood; and I had myself alleged this authority, but that something follows which might have given our adversaries a handle for cavil, though they can do our cause no hurt, nor their own any good by it. The Doctor again quotes St. Augustine to prove, that “ the virtue of Christ’s Body is in the Sacrament ;” but I cannot conceive, how this proves His spiritual personal Body distinct from His natural. Then he produces St. Ambrose®, which I have before sufficiently considered. St. Ambrose expressly mentions the spiritual Body, as in the Sacrament. The Doctor never does so much as pretend, that this personal spiritual Body of Christ is the Sacrament, or in the Sacrament, but only the virtue of It?, and so he himself explains it?. He goes on to cite Pseudo- Cyprian De Cena, a writer of the eleventh or twelfth century, who yet says not a word to the purpose, so far as I can see’. Cyril of Alexandria, cited in the same place, unquestionably speaks of Christ’s one natural Body, and therefore rather
SECT. I.
against than for the Doctor*. He would have our Saviour John vi.
speak of this spiritual Body. Of this I have said something already, and intend to enlarge myself hereafter. He produces Athanasius‘, who speaks evidently of the Eucharistical Body, (as I have shewed)". He proceeds to cite Cyril of Alexandria’,
1 p. 230. =p 237.
ap: 291. 5. p. 237.
np. p. 7. Ap. ACS pe 4 esi Seip. 27. Ap. a p. 24
P p. 233. v h. p. 44, Ap. 41 p. 234.
CH AP: 106
318 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
in words which he expressly applies to the Sacrament’. He applies what the Apostle says, 1 Cor. x. 2, 3, to this notion of His “ spiritual Body ;” but he does not mention it in terms, because he knew our Saviour then had no Body*. He mentions St. Augustine again, as speaking of the virtue of the Sacra- ment’. He cites the heretic Theodotus, in the words above produced by me; the reader may judge how much they help the Doctor’s cause”. He says Origen, as before cited, by the Word made Flesh “means the vital and Divine power, which goes along with the symbols.” If this be true, then the Doctor’s “vital and Divine power” is the whole Person of Christ Jesus*. For the establishing this bold doctrine, (I am sure I do not exceed the bounds of moderation in giving it that epithet,) he does not cite any one writer who mentions any spiritual Body of Christ, distinguished from His natural and Eucharistical Body. Dr. Henry More takes this scent, which he had from Dr. Pelling, and pursues it in a way peculiar to himself, in his book of “‘ The Real Presence”.”” I have said thus much of this singular opinion of these learned men; not that I appre- hend any danger of such notions prevailing or spreading themselves, in such an age as this of ours. I would have been more large and particular in my reflections, if I had had any suspicions that the doctrine were adapted to the relish of the men of this generation ; and yet, I think, I have said as much as is sufficient to weigh down all the arguings of Dr. Pelling, which are what Dr. More builds upon. And what use I fur- ther intended in the particular notice I have taken of this
opinion is, to observe to my reader, that studious and think- ὦ
ing men, who are very much under the power of religion, such as, I believe, both these Doctors were, can never satisfy them- selves with that cold and jejune account, which the generality of men amongst us have of late taken up of the Holy Sacra- ment, as mere emblems and remembrancers, no more than with the modern fanciful inventions of Luther and Calvin; and therefore rather indulge their imaginations in contriving some new hypothesis, which may better satisfy them, both because it is new, and because it is their own, than rest con-
w op. 248. 2 p. 265. x p. 244. a Ὁ. 266. Y p. 247. » [cap. vi. ]
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 319
tent with the empty figures and types of Arminians or Soci- nians, or with the odd and incongruous notions of Luther and Calvin.
And further, it particularly deserves our reflection, that all the wrong notions which have been framed concerning the eating and drinking of the Body and Blood of our Lord, pro- ceed from one single cause ; and that is, from an opinion, that Bread and Wine are too worthless and sorry things to be the Body and Blood of Christ, any otherwise than as mere figures or resemblances; therefore the main body of Christians in the East and West, in the North and South, and throughout the world, in the middle and dark ages of the Church, were easily persuaded to believe that there is no bread or wine remaining in the Eucharist, but that the entire substance there consecrated is the Body and Blood of Christ: but this was too gross and contrary to sense, to stand the scrutiny of Martin Luther and Philip Melancthon and their adherents, who had less deference to the authority of the Church than to their own senses; they were sure there was bread and wine remaining after consecration, and they were fully per- suaded that the Body and Blood were there too; therefore they conclude, that the Eucharist was a mixture of both, that the Body and Blood of Christ were in the Eucharist in an in- visible manner, | accompanying‘ ] the visible substance of Bread and Wine. Calvin and Beza goa step further; they will not allow the Bread and Wine to be so much as the vehicle of the Body and Blood, but make them things not only distinct, but very far distant from one another. They allowed nothing but bare elements to be taken from the celebrator ; and if men did over and above receive the Body and Blood of Christ, that was to be attributed to their own faith, by which they imagined they could communicate of the Body and Blood at any other place and in any other religious action as well as at the Lord’s Table or at the Sacrament. Dr. Pelling and Dr. More were men of too great sense to believe, that faith could make any thing present that was really absent; or bring Christ’s Body down from Heaven, or waft us up thither to receive It; there- fore they project a scheme, whereby they suppose, that we may communicate, not indeed of the natural or carnal, but
¢ [In the Ist ed. the Author had written ‘ contained in.’ ]
SECT. I
The occa- sion of modern mistakes about the Eucharist.
CHAP. Il.
1 Cor. x.2,3.
320 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
of another Body of Christ, that is in virtue and effect dif- fused throughout the universe; and though Dr. Pelling calls them two Bodies, yet in reality he makes the spiritual Body to be only the virtue or energy of the natural. It is evident that this was only a grafting or refinement upon the Calvin- istical plan; and they agree with the Calvinists in the main point, viz. that “though the great feast on this heavenly food is more especially and copiously enjoyed in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist ; yet we may, in some good measure, draw it in, day by day, by faith and devotion,” as Dr. More has it*: and “we are not to imagine, that the Body of Christ quickens none but at the Communion®.” I cannot but farther observe, that this fictitious spiritual Body of Christ is not a Body of these Doctors’ own making ; for Robert Barclay had published his Apology many years before they wrote the pieces I am now speaking of. And he, in his thirteenth proposition, ex- pressly asserts this spiritual Body of Christ ; and makes It the same with “the heavenly seed, that Divine, spiritual, heavenly substance,” which he and his friends commonly call “ the hight within.” In one particular, Barclay has the advantage of Dr. Pelling ; for he asserts, that Christ had this spiritual Body, even when He was “the Word of God;” and that by It He revealed and communicated Himself to the Patriarchs, and was Christ before His incarnation!; and therefore he might properly apply the words of St. Paul to this spiritual Body of Christ ; which Dr. Pelling could not do, without contradict- ing his own hypothesis: and yet he has ventured to do its. When Calvin had separated the Body from the Bread, it was easy for the Quakers to despise the latter, (which they could not have without a Priesthood or ministry,) and to conceit
d [p. 56. ed. 1686. ]
9 Dr. Pelling, p. 251.
£ [So then, as there was the outward visible Body and Temple of Jesus Christ, which took its origin from the Virgin Mary; so there is also the spi- ritual Body of Christ, by and through which, He, that was the Word in the beginning with God, and was and is God, did reveal Himself to the sons of men in all ages, and whereby men in all ages come to be made partakers of eternal life, and to have communion
and fellowship with God and Christ. Of which Body of Christ, and Flesh and Blood, if both Adam and Seth and Enoch and Noah and Abraham and Moses and David and all the Prophets and holy men of God had not eaten, they had not had life in them: nor could their inward man have been nourished.’’—Vid. Propo- sition ΧΙ. of the Apology, p. 449. ed. 1736. ] δ p. 244.
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 991
that they still enjoyed the former. And it must be owned, SECT. that the Arminians and Socinians, and their predecessors (in ᾿ this point) Zuinglius and (icolampadius, who wholly divided the Bread from the Body, chose for themselves the most con- temptible part, the poor, typical, figurative bread and wine ; and the Quakers, in taking their leavings (if they really had what they conceited themselves to have) got much the better of them. But what all ages and Christians before thought too mean and base to be the whole entertainment for pious souls at the Table of the Lord, that is, mere bread and wine, without either natural or spiritual Body and Blood joined to them or accompanying them, without any Divine grace or benediction shed on them by the Holy Ghost; these weak elements barely set apart for a pious use, our Arminians and Socinians have substituted, instead of the “medicine of im- mortality,” “the sanctifying food,” “the heavenly as well as earthly thing,” “ the spiritual nourishment,” ‘ the Divine sub- stance,” “ the tremendous mystery” of the ancients. Theydo not indeed deny the elements set apart for this use to be in some sense the Body and Blood; but the more you depress the mystery and degrade the dignity of the Eucharist, the less you make our Saviour’s words to signify,and the more flat and dead you affirm the types and symbols to be, the more orthodox you are in the opinion of these men. They do indeed agree with the ancient Church in many particulars, as in asserting, that Christ’s natural personal Body cannot be received; that there is but one Body of Christ in the Eucharist ; that the gross sub- stance of the Eucharistical Body is Bread: but they still make it ψιλὸς ἄρτος, without any spiritual power, or real enlivening energy. They believe it to be made the Body of Christ by the will and action of the Minister and people rather than by the Divine agency of the Holy Spirit.
I shall only, before I pass to another head of discourse, The consis- observe, that all the propositions hitherto laid down concern- (recor {B®
doctrines ing the nature of the Eucharist, are fairly consistent with each ee other ; and to this end, I will again place them all together im rst. the reader’s view.
1. The Body and Blood in the Sacrament are the Bread and Wine.
2. The Body and Blood in the Sacrament, or the conse-
JOHNSON. Ve
322 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
CHAP. crated Bread and Wine, are types of the natural Body and
Blood of Christ.
3. But they are not such cold and imperfect types as those before and under the Law.
4. Nay, they are the very Body and Blood, though not in substance, yet in spirit, power, and effect.
If there be any appearing inconsistence in these proposi- tions, it is between the second and the fourth; the second affirms the Bread and Wine to be types; the fourth affirms them to be the very Body and Blood. And if by the very Body and Blood were meant the natural or substantial, it must be acknowledged that the inconsistence were too great to be reconciled by me. But since it is the Body and Blood in power and effect only, this seems to me to remove every thing that can look like contradiction. In this sense, an exemplification, made according to the statute, is itself the record; and every impressed broad seal is itself the origmal. For though it consist of a material very different from that of the impressor, yet the impressed wax carries as much au- thority with it, as the original seal itself could do. I will not say, that this or any other imaginable similitude does in all respects come up to the nature of the great thing I am speaking of. Nay, I am sure it falls a great way below It in several respects. An exemplification receives it’s valid- ity from a statute, or statutes, made by the legislative au- thority once for all; the broad seal is passed, and made ef- fectual by a minister of the law, that has lttle or perhaps no share in the legislative power; but the Eucharistical Bread and Wine are made the Body and Blood of Christ, not only by virtue of the institution and command of Christ, Who did once for all order It; not only by the ministry of a man, who is invested with authority to this purpose; but by a Divine act of the Holy Spirit, repeated as often as the Eucharist is duly celebrated. And it ought freely to be owned, that so Divine an Agent may render the Bread and Wine the Body and Blood, in such a manner, and in so superlative a sense, as cannot be expressed by the tongue or pen of man. Nay, I believe, it must in truth and justice be said, that the Bread and Wine are so the Body and Blood of Christ, as no one thing in nature, beside these, can be
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 323
said to be another. This was the belief of the ancient Church; SECT. and this they thought to be such a mystery, as could never be = fathomed by human understanding. And though I am not sensible that they asserted any thing that contradicted the reason and sense of mankind; yet they always spake of It as a thing above our conceptions and capacities. I conclude therefore, that though the Eucharistical elements are not the substantial Body and Blood ; nay, they are the figurative and representative symbols of them ; yet they are somewhat more too; they are the mysterious Body and Blood of our ever- blessed Redeemer. By the mysterious Body and Blood, the reader will easily perceive, I mean neither substantial nor yet merely figurative, but the middle between these extremes, viz. the Bread and Wine made the Body and Blood of Christ, by the secret power of the Spirit; and apprehended to be so, not by our senses, but by our faith, directed and influenced by the same Holy Spirit ; and made the Body and Blood in such a manner as human reason cannot perfectly compre- hend. I proceed to shew,
V. That the ancients laid great stress on the belief of this doctrine ; and to this purpose I shall observe,
1. That they speak of this doctrine as a necessary point of Of the faith. Thus Theodoret", after he had in his dialogue made a Orthodoxus declare, what were the symbols of the Body and [31 0" the
belief of Blood; and after Orthodoxus had declared, that they were Christ’s
“called the Body and Blood ;” introduces Eranistes urging Dey Orthodoxus with this question, “And do you believe, that τα you partake of the Body and Blood of Christ?” and Ortho- doxus answers, “so I believe.” In this age he is commonly thought orthodox enough, that confesses the Bread and Wine to be symbols; and he, who goes a little farther and familiarly styles them the Body and Blood, shall be rather thought to overdo; but even this was not then sufficient ; but the sound Christian must believe them to be the Body and Blood more than in name and bare resemblance. For Or- thodoxus adds, “ They are apprehended to be what they were made; and they are believed and venerated, as being what they are believed.” Epiphanius’s words are very remarkable’ ; “Christ was pleased by grace to say, ‘This is My’ some- > m. p. 46. Ap. i. pa 22: App: 1. 7. ¥2
CHAP. Il.
324. THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
what, meaning ‘My Body, and no [Christian] man dis- believes the Word, and he that believes not” (He may perhaps mean, that he who believes not ‘ misses of the grace and virtue’ of the Sacrament ; the Greek will well bear this sense) “is fallen from grace and salvation. We believe what we have heard, that It is His [Body].” ‘ We do,” says Cyril of Jerusalem*, “with full assurance partake of them, as of the Body and Blood of Christ :’” and', “Regard them not, as mere Bread and Wine. For though your sense suggest this to you, yet let faith confirm you; determine not the matter by the taste, but be fully assured by faith, that you are un- doubtedly honoured with the Body and Blood of Christ.” I shall not accumulate authorities in a case so notorious ; but only further observe upon these I have produced, that they speak of it as of a doctrine not easy and obvious, but such an article as is a trial of our faith; they speak of it, as a thing not only necessary to be believed, but which will not be believed but by a faith that is not governed by sense, by a faith that is peculiar to good Christians; whereas a Deist or an Atheist may believe, that Bread broken and Wine poured out were appointed by Jesus Christ to be symbols of His Body and Blood; even they that crucified Christ and charged Him with imposture might be satisfied by the testimony of Judas, that Christ did command His disciples to remember His death by these typical ceremonies; but none of these could cr would believe, that the Bread and Wine was His Body and Blood, in the sense above men- tioned, as the primitive Christians did. And lest my reader should suspect, that this is a doctrine broached in the fourth century; let him consider the words of Irenzus, when, speaking of the heretics against whom he wrote, he asks™, “ How they will be sure that the eucharistized Bread is His Body, the Wine His Blood, if they deny Him to be the Son of Him Who made the universe.” He supposes it to be an article of very considerable moment, of which Christians ought to be perfectly well convinced ; and that Bread and Wine, created by a God that was not the Father of Jesus Christ, could never be made His Body and Blood. For it was incredible, that God should send His Spirit to sanctify kc. p. 18. Ap. 1d. p. 19. Ap. 1. 8. m ἢ p. 5. Ap. 1. 17.
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 325
creatures that were not His own. Im this the force of his SECT. argument consists, as he explains it afterward, by saying of Ξ the Catholics, that they “agreeably declared a unity of the [Eucharistical] Flesh and the Spirit ;” and it has been before proved, that he judged the elements to be made the Body and Blood by a spiritual and Divine power; and this therefore
was the doctrine, of which he would have Christians fully persuaded. This is the doctrine in which Christians were “ in- structed” in the time of Justin Martyr"; and they who dis- believed it are by St. Ignatius® branded with a particular mark of infamy.
2. The primitive Church required an explicit belief of this, The primi- both from Clergy and people, as often as they administered pita τος or received the Communion. The known form of adminis- [xPlcit be tering the Eucharist, in the Christian Church of the first ages, was thus. The Bishop or Priest, who distributed the Bread, holding the symbol out to the receiver, said, “the Body of Christ.” The Deacon or Priest, holding out the Cup, said, “the Blood of Christ ;” to both of which the re- ceiver answered “Amen.” Of this we have abundant evi- dence. Tertullian, speaking of those who went to the theatre to see prizes fought, cries out?, “ What a thing is this, that you should give applause to a gladiator from that very mouth, with which you have pronounced ‘Amen’ over the Holy of the Lord!” that is, over the offered Body and Blood. Cor- nelius Bishop of Rome, in the History of Eusebius, informs us, that Novatus swore them that communicated with him never to return to their Bishop4, “and when he had made the oblation, and distributed his share to every one, instead of saying ‘ Amen,’ he that received answered, “1 will not re- turn to Cornelius.” Cyril of Jerusalem, giving directions for the reverent receiving the Communion, charges every one’ “to pronounce ‘Amen’ both over the Body—and the Cup.” “ With what conscience,” says St. Jerome’, “shall I come to the Eucharist of the Lord, and answer ‘Amen,’ when I doubt of the charity of him that holds it out to me?” I might produce citations from St. Augustine and other Fathers to the same purpose, but because I suppose this to be a truth
wes.Ap- 1: 18, “ h.xp. 2. App. Pb. p. 7. Ap. 15. Ap. τὰν p. 19. Ap. * £. Pees eAps
CHAP. ΠῚ.
326 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
that none will dispute with me, I will only mention that of
———— δὲ. Ambroset; “Christ Himself calls It His Blood. Before
The doc- trine of the Eucharist a secret to all but communi- cants.
consecration It goes by another name; after consecration it is styled His Blood: thou answerest ‘Amen;’ this is true. Let your mind consent to what your mouth pronounces.” By this last authority it is evident, that this “Amen” was not supposed to be optative or precatory, but affirmative ; and it has, and will appear, that the ancients believed that the Bread and Wine became the Body and Blood by and upon the consecration ; and that therefore it is not reconcile- able to their opinion to suppose, that there was any occasion after that to pray that it might be made the Body and Blood; and the words used by them who administered were, as has been said, “the Body of Christ, the Blood of Christ,”—(to which the Constitution Liturgy adds, “the Cup of Life ”?)— and these words imply no wish or prayer, but express the belief of the Church and of the administrator, that what was now distributed was the Body or Blood. There was no article inserted into any creed relating to the Eucharist ; and the reason is very obvious, namely, that creeds were forms of Faith to be taught the catechumens in order to their Bap- tism; but the doctrine of the Eucharist was never delivered to any in the primitive Church, until after Baptism and con- firmation. Therefore this article was peculiar to the initiated or communicants, and they professed it as often as they ap- proached to the Lord’s Table. And this leads me to ob- serve,
Thirdly, that the primitive Church did industriously con- ceal the matter and the manner of celebrating the Eucharist from all that had not a right actually to partake of it. This is by all acknowledged to have been the general practice of the ancient Church, and therefore I shall not spend time in proving it. The use which I at present make of it is, to ob- serve to my reader, that they looked upon this doctrine as one of those pearls which were not to be thrown to swine, and indeed as the principal of them; for this was the last secret which was communicated to converts. The whole creed was taught the catechumens for some time before they were baptized; but this was the “hidden manna, the
‘a, p. 27. Ap. 14.
q
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. OL
wisdom of God in a mystery,” which they never speak of in words at length, but to the ‘perfect’? only. The other heads of Christian Faith the Fathers treated of freely and apertly, in their homilies or sermons to the catechumens as well as the faithful; but the doctrine of the Sacraments, especially the Eucharist, they reserved for them only, whom they thought fit to receive them. The reasons they had for the concealment of these mysteries were, in sum, to shew the great esteem they had of them, and which they by this means endeavoured to imprint upon all that were admitted to the knowledge and enjoyment of them; and at the same time to guard, and, if possible, to secure these holy institu- tions from the flouts and objections of Jews and Heathen and of all whom they thought too light and frothy to be entrusted with things so very weighty and serious and yet of so peculiar a nature, that there was nothing in the world that could in all respects be compared to them. For they justly believed, that the Sacraments were consecrated by the Holy Ghost, and that therefore a Divine power went along with them; which was reason enough why they should set the highest value upon them, and desire that others should do so too: and yet they knew the visible signs of these Sa- craments to be ‘ beggarly elements,’ things in their own nature very cheap and common; and they might without the gift of prophecy easily foresee, that the enemies of Chris- tianity would always be ringing in the ears of all that were well affected to Christianity, (as the Deists and Quakers are perpetually labouring to persuade our people,) that there can be no such effects of Water, Bread, and Wine, as Priests of the Christian Church would have them believe. And there is one thing peculiar to the Eucharist, which made it more liable to the scoffs of Anti-christian spirits, than any other part of our religion ; which is, that the Bread and Wine were believed to be the very Body and Blood of Christ : no wonder, if they were much upon the reserve in this point; since all must be sensible, that nothing in the Christian theology could have afforded more agreeable entertainment to the drolls and buffoons of the age ; for whatsoever is most ex- traordinary and elevated above the condition of other things, which seem to be of the same sort, lies most exposed to
SECT. L
CHAP. Il.
3828 THE HOLY GHOST MAKES THE
profane wit and mirth, when that which gives it it’s worth and excellency can only be believed and not seen. And no doubt but Tertullian spoke the sense of all the learned Fathers of his own and of the succeeding times, in those ob- servable words, “‘ There is nothing does so much harden the minds of men as the simplicity of the Divine mimistrations, which is seen in the [outward] action ; and the magnificence, as to [their] efficacy, which is promised [to us*.]” If the ancient Church had had no other notion of the Eucharist but that which now prevails among too many, that it is only a refreshing of our memory, and a symbol of love, or a federal rite ; I can see no occasion why they should set such a guard about it, and use such a solicitous caution against exposing it to the eyes or ears of the profaners. The heathen phi- losophers and the Jewish Rabbies could scarce sink it lower than the Arminians and Socinians have done of late. And the candid Pliny gives as gentleman-like an account of it, in his letter to Trajan the Emperor, as some that go for Chris- tian Divines in these latter ages. I am sensible that the ancient Fathers have been damned for Priest-craft upon the score of their drawing a vail before the Christian mysteries ; for it is by our sciolists represented as Popery, to hide mys- teries from the eyes of others. But now I am apt to think, that if the Papists affected only to conceal their Sacraments from the sight and knowledge of bigoted Jews, Turks, or Heathens, who were ready to profane, or however to loath or despise them; no man, that has a due regard for those holy institu- tions, would think them culpable on this account. The fault of the ruling part of the Church of Rome is not, that they keep their own people from the sight or knowledge of the Sacraments, for this they do not; but that they use a great deal of art and severity, in restraining their laity from look- ing into the Bible and other books, by which they might be informed of the errors of that Church, in things relating to the Sacrament and other heads of Christianity. The primi- tive Church not only permitted, but exhorted the laity to read the Scriptures; and took great care to instruct and train up all the people in the knowledge of the Eucharist and all other saving doctrines of Christianity; and withheld
" See the Latin in the title-page.
SYMBOLS THE BODY AND BLOOD. 3829
their mysteries from none, but such as they had good reason SECT. to believe would scorn and deride rather than believe or make Ξ a proper use of them. The catechumens were a sort of people in a middle state, candidates or probationers only for Chris- tianity ; and as soon as the governors of the Church were satisfied, that they were fixed and settled in the belief of the general doctrines of the Gospel, such as were frequently read to them out of Scripture and explained in the sermons or homilies of the pastors; they were at their own request bap- tized, and so forthwith let into all the mysteries of religion ; and I wish with all my heart, that they, who make the Bread and Wine to be mere symbols empty of all Divine grace, may not pour contempt on this doctrine of the Eucharist, as it was received in the primitive Church ; and thereby give us a fresh proof, that the ancients were obliged, in common pru- dence, to conceal the nature of this mystery from all that were not initiated; and so at the same time justify the ancient Fathers, and condemn themselves. For if they, who would now be thought best to understand Christianity, and [who] despise the ancients, as men that were not such critics in languages as themselves, shall reject these notions of the Eucharist as vain and groundless, which the Fathers with good reason thought they had learned from our Saviour and His Apostles ; how much more may it be supposed, that they would do the same, who had been born and bred Jews and Heathens, and that were blinded with violent prejudices against Christianity itself? However, that awe and reverence with which the ancients treated the holy Eucharist, and the care they took that their converts should do so too, is an un- exceptionable proof, that they looked upon It as the most holy and venerable institution of the Christian Church, as a spiri- tual mystery not to be divulged to any until they had given sufficient proof of their integrity. I proceed to consider,
VI. By what means the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist By what were by the ancients believed to be made the Body and Blood ore of Christ, the substance of Bread and Wine yet remaining. ἘΣ ΤΩΣ Now I have already proved, that the Holy Ghost was, by the ie ne Day vote of antiquity, the principal immediate cause of the Bread of Christ. and Wine’s becoming the Body and Blood. It now remains only that I shew, that the subordinate or mediate cause of it
CHAP. Il.
By the words of institution.
830 HOW THE SACRAMENT
is, 1. The reciting the words of institution. 2. The oblation of the symbols. 3. The prayer of invocation. All these three did, in the ancient Liturgies, immediately follow each other, in the order that I have mentioned them ; and each of them was believed to contribute toward the consecration of the elements into the Body and Blood.
1. As to the words of institution, what St. Chrysostom says is very observable®*, “The Priest fulfilling his office stands pro- nouncing those words, but the power and grace is of God; that Word, ‘This is My Body,’ ἕο. changes the [gifts] laid in open view; and as the Word that says, ‘Increase and multiply,’ was but once pronounced, but is actually operative on our nature throughout all ages for the procreation of children ; so that Voice once pronounced has it’s effects on the prepared Sacrifice, on every Table of the Churches, from that time to this, and until His own Advent.” St. Augustine attributes much to these words, when he says’, “ Before the words of Christ, what is offered is called Bread ; after the words of Christ have been pronounced, It is no longer called Bread, but the Body.” And I suppose what he says, at another place, is to be under- stood of the Eucharist as well as of Baptism, viz. “The Word is added to the element, and it becomes a Sacrament.” St. Ambrose speaks to the same purpose’, “This Bread Christ gave to His Apostles to divide among the multitude of be- hevers, and gives it us this day, which the Priest himself con- secrates with His words ;” and “ Christ is manifestly declared to offer by us, and His word consecrates the Sacrifice which is offered.” Some may suppose, that these words of St. Augus- tine and St. Ambrose are meant of the Lord’s Prayer; espe- cially because St. Augustine himself says‘, that ‘‘ almost every Church used that Prayer, at the conclusion of the consecra- tion ;” and St. Jerome gives us an intimation of the same practice ; but since no truly ancient writer attributes any such power to that Prayer in express words, as they do to those of the institution, therefore I think it most rational to under- stand these Fathers in the sense before mentioned. I am
* ΠΣ p. 38. Ap. > c. p..26. Ap. Υ tt. p. 34. Ap. £1 σι». 51. pias 7 p. p. 33. Ap. dg. p. 28.
a, p. 26, Ap.
WAS CONSECRATED OF OLD. 331
sensible Gregory the Great is often cited for saying, Apostolis SECT. in more fuisse, ut ad ipsam solummodo Orationem Dominicam = oblationis Hostiam consecrarent®, that is, ‘ It was the practice of the Apostles to consecrate the oblation, by saying the Lord’s Prayer only ;” but I cannot think, that a writer of the latter end of the sixth century is a competent witness to establish a fact of this moment, when destitute of all testimony of the earlier ages. Gregory Nyssen expressly attributes the conse- cration or change‘ to ‘the Word of God;’ and presently inti- mates, that by the Word of God he means ‘ This is My Body.’ Origen seems to mean the same in saying, that “not the Bread, but the Word spoken over it, is profitable ;’ and J must confess I cannot but take Irenzus in the same sense, in those words of his", “ when the Bread and Cup receive the Word of God, they are made the Eucharist.” I am sensible the excel- lent Dr. Grabe is willing by ‘the Word of God’ to understand the Divine Word or power: and that may be imported too in St. Irenzus’s expression, for he might justly suppose, that those words of Christ carried Divine power with them; but 1 think it most natural to understand him as primarily mean- ing the Word spoken. Andit is very evident to any one that looks into the ancient Liturgies, that the consecration begins by the Priest’s pronouncing the words of institution, is con- tinued by the solemn act of oblation, and finished by the in- vocation of the Holy Ghost. The Church of Rome attributes the consecration wholly to the words of institution ; the Greek Church wholly to the prayer of invocation; but I conceive the ancients did not attribute the consecration to any one of these actions in such a manner as to exclude the other; nay, further,
2. They thought the oblation of the symbols necessary in Oblation order to obtain a perfect consecration of them. To this pur- ae pose St. Ambrose! speaks of “ offering the Body to be changed pero ie os or transfigured on the Altars.” He calls It “the Body;” and ments. yet supposes It to be offered, in order to receive a further
e [The passage in St. Gregory runs pp. 270, ed. Par. 1619.]
thus: ‘‘Orationem vero Dominicam fa. p. 23, 24. Ap. 1. 29. idcirco mox post precem dicimus: quia & f. p. 10. Ap.
mos Apostolorum fuit, ut ad ipsam πεν On ἌΡ 1: ὃ; solummodo Orationem oblationis Hos- is Map ever
tiam consecrarent.’”’—Tom. iy. Ep. 64.
CHAP. ΤΙ. Lev. vii. 6;
xix. 8.
3832 HOW THE SACRAMENT
change or consecration. To this purpose it is very observable, that in the Liturgy of St. Basil, the Priest, after having pro- nounced the words of institution, offers the Bread and Wine under the name of* “antitypes of the Body and Blood of Christ ;” and after this, prays for the Holy Spirit to “come down and bless the gifts, and make! the Bread the Body, the Wine the Blood of Christ.” This for ever confounds the doctrine of the Church of Rome, which asserts the elements to be transubstantiated by the words of institution ; and rather inclines one to believe, that the ancients thought the elements to be made the symbols or representatives of the mere mate- rial dead body and effused blood of Christ, by the authority of the words of institution ; but that in order to render them the spiritual life-giving Body and Blood of our Saviour, it was further necessary, that they should be offered to God and accepted by Him; and that He thereupon should cause the Holy Spirit, at the request of Priest and people, to give them the finishing consecration. It is certain, that the judicious and pious Fathers of the Constantinopolitan Council so often mentioned did not think that the symbols were entirely con- secrated at one instant, as appears by those words of theirs™, “The Eucharist becomes a Divine Body by means of the Priest, who makes the oblation in it’s passage from being common to become holy.” They clearly suppose a gradual process in the consecration ; and that durimg this process, viz. between the words of institution and the prayer of invocation, the Priest makes the oblation; whether their words imply, that the oblation of itself does promote the consecration, I leave to my reader’s judgment. And if these Fathers did not mean so much in these words, yet there can be no doubt of the thing itself, if it be considered, that the Fathers of the third century, St. Cyprian and Dionysius of Alexandria, call the Eucharistical elements, “the holy and most holy things of the Lord;” the former in several places", the latter in his second canon; and so does Tertul- lian®, who was their senior. For it is known that this was the title given to the flesh of the peace-offermg and
k g. p. 57. Ap. ™ py. 51. Ap. I. 26:
1 ᾿Αναδεῖξαι does certainly in the nib. p, 11 Api; 8. Ρ. eles) ἘΠῚ
Liturgic language signify to ‘make,’ 11. Ap. ‘render,’ &c. Pebapi tip:
WAS CONSECRATED OF OLD. 333
sin-offering ; and the reason of their being so styled was,
SECT. It
that they had been solemnly offered to God. And I have ——~—~—
before shewed, that benedictions were of old passed upon men by offering sacrifice m their behalf; and it is evident that sacrifices were the chief medium, by which Aaron and his sons were themselves consecrated to the priest’s office; by which I suppose it is evident, that the matter of sacrifices was always looked upon, not only to be itself holy, but to be a-means of transferring holiness to others; to which purpose also see Levit. vi. 27. Now whatever can communicate sanct- ity of any sort to others must be supposed to have sanctity itself in a more perfect and plentiful manner. No wonder therefore, if the ancient Church thought it necessary, that the Bread and Wine, the symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood, should be offered to God, in order to make them capable of the highest degree of sanctification that such creatures are capable of; and therefore all the ancient Liturgies direct the Priest first to make the oblation, then to pray for the descent of the Holy Spirit, or the Divine benediction, which last is the usual expression of the Latin Liturgies: and they all agree in begging of God “to look graciously on the gifts,” and to vouchsafe the Spirit, or heavenly blessing, as the effect of His accepting the oblation. So that the Eucharist was supposed to acquire some degree of sanctification by beimg presented to God; not only by reason that the very offering it to God was a consecration of it, but because by being offered to God and accepted by Him it was thought to be prepared and qualified for the most eximious degree of sanctification, that can be communicated to bread and wine?P. I shall on this head further mention the words of Irenzus‘; “We offer to God, as sanctifying the creatures ;” which suf- ficiently shews his opinion, that the symbols received some degree of sanctification by being made an oblation. And when St. Ignatius" calls the Eucharist ‘the Bread of God,” he not only intimates that it was offered to God, but that by being offered it was consecrated; for whatever was of old styled “the Bread of God” was thought to be holy, and to
Pp “And indeed, by the law of Moses, ner presented to God.’’ [1st ed. ] nothing could be made the most holy, 4 f. p. 5, 6. Ap. 1. 32. or ‘the holy of the Lord,’ but what ἘΒΌΑ had been first in the most solemn man-
334 HOW THE SACRAMENT
το - P. become holy, by being offered to the Almighty. We meet with
——— this phrase, Lev. xxi. 6, where the priests are charged not to profane themselves, because “they offer the bread of their God.” And again, ver. 7, 8, “The priest is holy unto God; for he offereth the bread of Thy God.” And it is said to Aaron, ver. 17, “ Whosoever he be of thy seed, that hath a blemish, let him not approach to offer the bread of His God.” And ver. 21, “He hath a blemish, he shall not come near to offer the bread of His God.” From these places it is evident to a demonstration, that what is called “the bread of God” was somewhat solemnly offered by the priest; and what part of the sacrifice was particularly distinguished by this name, you may learn, Lev. iii. 11, for there it is said of the two kidneys, the fat, and caul, taken from the beast sacrificed for a peace-offering, that “the priest shall burn it on the altar; it is the bread of the offering made by fire unto the Lord.” It is evident then, that that portion of the sacrifice which was burnt on the altar was particularly dis- tinguished by this name of ‘the bread of God.’ (Our English translators turn ond ‘ food, in the place last mentioned, but ‘bread’ in the other places.) And the very same thing is meant by the bread of God, Lev. xxii. 25, where the priest is forbid “to offer the bread of God from the hands of a stranger ;” but in the twenty-second verse of the twenty-first chapter, it is taken in so large a sense, as to include that part of the sacrifice for sin and the peace-offerings, which were reserved to be eaten by the priest. For it is there said of the priest that had a blemish, that “he shall eat of the bread of His God, both of the most holy, and the holy.” By the “most holy” is meant, the priest’s part of the sin-offering ; by “the holy,” the priest’s part of the peace-offering. The conclusion therefore is unavoidable, that when St. Ignatius calls the Eucharist “the Bread of God,’ he means some material thing offered to God, and sanctified or consecrated by means of that oblation. I now proceed to prove,
Be conse 3. That the ancients believed the consecration of the ele-
the ele- | ments was finished by means of the prayer of invocation. And
finiched by Since I have already made it appear, that it is the Holy Spirit,
the prayer Which consecrates the gifts, and makes the true life-giving
of invo-
cation. — Body of Christ ; and that in the primitive Church, the prayer
WAS CONSECRATED OF OLD. 335
for the descent of the Spirit to render the Bread the Body of 8 τ : T.
Christ comes after the words of institution and the commemo- ——-—— rative oblation, therefore the thing is in effect proved already ; for if the elements were by either or both the former means fully consecrated, what occasion to invoke the Holy Spirit for the further consecration of them? ‘They are indeed by the words of institution deputed to represent the crucified Body and effused Blood of Christ, and as such are offered to God; but this Body of Christ is not quickened by the supervening power of the Spirit of God, before That Spirit is by prayer invited to consummate the holy mysteries ; but I will further (because it seems to me a matter of considerable moment) shew, that it was the current opinion of the ancients, that it was by this prayer of consecration that the elements were finally and completely consecrated. Now the words of Theo- doret, in his second Dialogue, are very home to this purpose’ ; “What do you call the gift” (says Eranistes) ‘ before the in- vocation of the Priest?” Orthodoxus answers, “ Food made of such and such grains.” LEranistes, “ How do we call the other symbol?” Orthodoxus, “A certain liquor,” &c. Eranist., “ How do you call them after consecration?” Orthod., “ The Body and Blood of Christ.” It is observable, that the Cle- mentine Constitutions, in the commemorative oblation, calls what is offeredt, “The Bread and Cup;” not that they did not look upon them to be the representative Body and Blood, but because they deemed them to be made the Body and Blood in a more exalted sense after the prayer of invocation had been made. Theodoret in this very Dialogue" says, ‘‘ The mystical symbols offered by the Priests are the mystical symbols of the Body and Blood.” And at another place*, “The Church offers the symbols of His Body and Blood.” Victor Antiochenus says’, “ After the benediction is added to the Bread and Cup, by the symbols of Bread men par- take of the Body, by the Cup, of the Blood of Christ.” Chry- sostom’ attributes the “consummation of the mysteries to the invocation of the Holy Spirit.” And@, “ When the Priest stands before the Table, stretching out his hands to heaven,
m. p. 46. Ap. y p. 43. Ap.
§
ΡΟ ΤῈ oo. Ap, 1.29, ΚΔ ps ΘΒ: ΙΑ, u 1, p. 46. Ap. am. p. 39. Ap. xd Ρ
CHAP. ΤΕ
996 HOW THE SACRAMENT
invocating the Holy Spirit that He would come and give the contact, then all is whist”, &c. but when the Holy Spirit sheds His grace,’ ἕο. He supposes that the contact is not vouch- safed, until after the prayer of consecration is ended. Again‘, “The Priest stands, brmging down not fire but the Holy Ghost; and makes an ample supplication, not that a torch let down from above may consume the [gifts] laid m open view, but that grace, lighting on the Sacrifice, may by that [Sacrifice] inflame the hearts ofall.” St. Augustine supposes4, “The prayers properly so called (προσευχαὶ, he is speak- ing of 1 Tim. u. 1.) to be made at the consecration of the Bread, and in preparing it for the distribution ;” and more directly*, “ We call That only the Body and Blood of Christ, Which is consecrated by a mystic prayer,” ἕο. St. Ambrose says‘, that “the sacred things are changed into the Flesh and Blood of Christ by a mystic prayer.” Nay, that “the nature of the elements is changed by the benediction.” Ephrem Syrus" represents Priests bowing down before the lofty Throne,—“ praying that the Holy Spirit may descend, and consecrate the gifts placed in open view.” “ Which of the saints,” says Basil the Great’, “ hath left us im writing the form of invocation, at the consecrating* the Bread of the Eucharist and the Cup of eulogy?” Optatus’s quo postulatus descendit Spiritus has been mentioned before, and so need only be hinted here. Cyril of Jerusalem has been already pro- duced, as mentioning a prayer’, in which God was beseeched to “send His Holy Spirit to make the Bread the Body,” ἕο. Again, he tells us™, “ Before the mvocation of the adored Trinity, it was mere bread and wine; but the mvocation once made, the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, the Wine the Blood.” And*, “The Bread of the Eucharist, after the in- vocation of the Holy Spirit, is not mere bread, but the Body of Christ.” Origen® gives us his opmion, that “the loaves
6 [πολλὴ ἡσυχία, ‘there is great k *Avadelgis is the word here and stillness,’ } elsewhere used for consecrating or ren-
¢ h, p. 38. Ap. dering the Bread and Wine, the Body
aN cl 591: ΔΈΝ. 8: and Blood.
¢ R. p. 37. Ap. 1 f. p. 19. Ap.
fe. p. 26. Ap. τς Ὁ. 18. Ap.
Ei. p. 27. Ap. n aa. p. 18. Ap.
ha. p. 25. Ap. ο a. p. 9. Ap.
e. p. 23. Ap.
ι
WAS CONSECRATED OF OLD. 337
are made a certain Holy Body by prayer.” He does not say the Body of Christ; because he was speaking to heathen. And again?P, “ That the sanctified Bread is profitable, accord- ing to the prayer made over it.” And Irenzeus4, “ The earthly bread receiving the invocation is no longer common bread, but the Eucharist, consisting of two things, an earthly and heavenly.” These two last mentioned were before produced to prove the words of the institution, and so were St. Chry- sostom, St. Augustine, and others; and I will here add, that Gregory Nyssen' and some others do apply to the Eucharist those words of the Apostle, “It is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer ;” which makes it evident, that the ancients did not think it any way inconsistent to say, that the Eucha- rist was consecrated, both by one means and the other; nay, that they thought both of them necessary to this purpose. St. Justin Martyr is very express‘, ‘that the food is eucha- ristized by prayer, and becomes the Body and Blood of the incarnate Jesus.” St. Ignatius makes mention of this prayer, though he does not expressly take notice of it’s being designed for the consecration ; for he says, the heretics he spake oft “ abstained from the Eucharist and prayer, because they did not acknowledge the Eucharist to be the Body of Christ Jesus.” The reason given why they abstained from prayer is the same with that, for which they abstained from the Eu- charist, viz. because they did not believe it to be the Body of Christ; now this is no reason at all, why they should abstain from all prayer; for I suppose there is no manner of dependence or connexion between the duty of prayer in general, and the real Body of Christ. Nor can it be con- ceived, how they could argue against the use of all prayer whatsoever, though it were granted them, that Christ had no Body, but only in appearance; but this opinion of theirs was a very good reason, why they should abstain from the prayer of consecration used in the Church, because that prayer was formed upon these two certain truths, that Christ had a real Body, which was born of the blessed Virgin and suffered under Pontius Pilate, and that the Bread in the
P f, p. Seis. ps ¥ a. p. 23, 24. Ap. |. 34, 35.
JOHNSON. Z
SECT. IL
CHAP. ΠΤ
338
HOW THE SACRAMENT
Sacrament was That Body in power and effect ; and in such a prayer they could not indeed sincerely join; and therefore of such a prayer must these words be understood. The learned Cotelerius, in his note on these words", observes, that by prayer is meant that of consecration; and cites the words of St. Jerome, ad Evagrium*, 85, where speaking of Priests, he says, “at their prayers the Body and Blood of Christ are perfectly consecrated,” (conficitur is the Latin word) ; they were before symbols, by this means they become the true spiritual Body and Blood; and as the whole is some- times denominated from one part, so he shews that by ‘the prayer’ is sometimes understood the whole Eucharistical office ; as at other places, the word ‘Sacrifice’ or ‘oblation’ carries the same signification. He supposes, that by “the prayers of the Sacrifices,’ mentioned by Tertullian’, we are chiefly to under- stand this of consecration; and I may add, that when the seventh alias tenth* Apostolical Canon* censures those who come to church but “do not stay for the Communion and prayers,”’ we are to take those words in the same sense that we do St. Ignatius’s Eucharist and prayer. And it is obsery- able, that even heretics, when they invented new schemes of worship, and erected new Altars, did also form new prayers of consecration ; as appears from those words of St. Cyprian®, “The enemy of the Altar, the rebel against the Sacrifice of Christ, dares to constitute another Altar, and offer another prayer with an unlicensed mouth ;’ and so Irenzus* repre- sents Marcus as ‘spinning out a prayer of invocation to a great length,” in order to procure the charis to descend on his Eucharistical Cup. And indeed Ignatius seems to explain what he means by prayer in the place now cited, by what he says elsewhere ; for immediately after those words‘, “If any one be not within the Altar-place, he is deprived of the Bread of God;” he adds, “If the prayer of one or two have so great
“ [ Multa et gravia peccat ad hune locum oppugnator Epistolarum nostra- rum. 1. perperam accipit vocem προσ- εὐχῆς latissimo modo pro omni pror- sus oratione: cum Ignatius aut loqua- tur de prece mystica, oratione sollenni, qua Corpus Christi conficitur. Hie- ronym. Epist. 85.—Aut potius intel- ligat preces Liturgicas sive Missam, juxta—‘ Sacrificiorum orationes’ in Ter-
tulliano, lib. De Oratione extremo.’’— Cotelerius in S, Ign. Ep. ad Smyrn. cap. Vii. ]
* (i. e. Evangelum. ]
Y i. p. 8. Ap.
τ p. 48. Ap.
* [Canon 9. ]
Or depen
¢ a. p. 3. Ap.
aap. L.NAsp:
WAS CONSECRATED OF OLD. 339
force, how much more the prayer of the Bishop and the whole sECT. Church?” for these words seem to import, that the efficacy — of the Eucharist, which he calls “the Bread of God,” is in a great measure to be attributed to the prayer of consecration : so that few truths are better supported from antiquity than this. And when our Saviour is said by the Evangelists to have blessed or eucharistized the Bread and Cup, it probably implies that He did address Himself to His Divine Father, that the Sacrifice now offered by Him might be replenished with such inward energy, as was necessary for the ends to which It was intended. At another place this word εὐχαριστεῖν is used, to denote our Saviour’s working a very great miracle in nature, I mean, His multiplying the loaves, see John vi. 11. 23; and though I do not see any reason to believe, that either Jesus Christ in the first Eucharist, or His Apostles, or other Ministers afterward, did exert any miraculous power in consecrating the Sacrament; yet it must be asserted, that all the actings of the Spirit are preternatural, whether these act- ings do affectimmaterial or material things. Andwhen St. Paul speaks of “ the Cup of blessing which we bless,” as it is evi- dent beyond dispute, that he means the Cup in the Eucha- rist ; so neither is it less plain in itself, that the Apostle sup- poses, that there was a Divine benediction imparted to it, and that this benediction was procured by what we now call a prayer of consecration; for to suppose, that the Cup was blessed by no other means than by giving thanks over it, or by making an acknowledgment to God for the benefit of His material creatures, is neither consistent with the gramma- tical construction of the words, nor with the sentiments of the ancients just now laid before the reader ; so that in this, as well as in other particulars, there is an admirable harmony between the words of the Apostle and the primitive Church. And it is evident, that the ancients promiscuously use the word Eucharist and Eulogy. St. Irenzeus® instead of saying the Cup of Eulogy or blessmg, when he cites the words of the Apostle St. Paul in the tenth chapter of 1 Cor. ver. 18, says, “the Cup of Eucharist ;” and St. Cyril of Alexandria and Gregory Nyssen do familiarly use Eulogy for the Sacra- mental Body. I am sensible some of the Church of Rome ΕΣ θ. 01 ΔῊ. 19
4 we
CHAP. Il.
340 HOW THE SACRAMENT
would persuade us, that this prayer in the ancient Greek
——— Liturgies for the descent of the Holy Ghost, and in most of
Oblation not finished until after consecra- tion.
the Latin Liturgies for the Divine benediction, imports no more than a request to God, that the Body of Christ and the Blood of Christ in the Eucharist may be truly so to the receivers, and that they may take Them to their salvation, and not their condemnation; and therefore they so para- phrase them, as if the construction were, “make them the Body and the Blood of Christ [to us] ;’” but these last words are in none of the ancient Liturgies, and this is only a gloss ~ of theirs, without any foundation in the Liturgies them- selves. The Clementine Liturgy prays for the Holy Ghost‘ “to make the Bread the Body of Christ,” and this after the words of institution and commemorative oblation ; which can never be reconciled to the present doctrine of the Church of Rome, which supposes the change wrought by these words, “This is My Body, This is My Blood ;” and is an undeniable proof, that the composer of this Liturgy did not believe, that the Eucharistical symbols were fully consecrated before this prayer was uttered; and the same may be said of St. James’s Liturgy’, St. Mark’s®, St. Basil’s', and St. Chrysostom’s*, as the reader may see in the Appendix.
There is one thing, of which I cannot advertise my reader more seasonably than in this place; namely, that though the solemn oblation begins in all the Liturgies after the words of institution, and before the [invocation of the] Holy Spirit or the Divine benediction; yet the sacrificial service is not ended until after the consecration. For it is to be observed, that the Clementine Liturgy', St. James’s™, St. Chrysos- tom’s", St. Peter’s®, St. Gregory’s?, contain a prayer for the acceptance of the Sacrifice; and particularly, that it “may be received up to the heavenly Altar,” after the con- secration is fully ended: and the most solemn propitiations, intercessions, reconciliations for the whole Church, for all orders and degrees of men, for all the most desirable graces and favours, follow after the consecration, in the Clementine
f ec. p. 52, 53. Ap. 1. 37. 1d. p. 54. Ap. 4 fans ee Ap. 4 - Ρ. ue reg
ce. p. 06. Ap. . p- 58. Ap. i f. g. p. δῦ, 57. Ap. © δ p. 58. Ap. k d. p. 57. Ap. Pc. p. 09. Ap.
WAS CONSECRATED OF OLD. 541
Liturgy?. And these no doubt were esteemed a considerable SECT. part of the sacrificial service ; and these were performed, after the symbols had been made the spiritual Body and Blood, in the most perfect and complete manner that it was possible for one thing, it’s substance remaining, to become another. It was the Eucharistical Body and Blood, Which were the gifts or Sacrifice, Which they desired might be assumed up - to the Altar in heaven, in the same sense that Cornelius’s The Altar alms, Acts x., “came up for a memorial before God ;” pds peeven: that the sacrifice of Melchisedec and Abel (which were certainly material) had the same honour vouchsafed to them : ; these last are particularly mentioned in the Liturgy of St. Peter’, [and of] St. Gregory’. And these propitiations, or whatever other name the reader is pleased to give them, are found in all the Liturgies ; asthe reader, who has opportunity of inspecting the Liturgies themselves, may satisfy himself ; but they were too long to be transcribed. Now we cannot in reason say, that this latter part of the sacrificial service is to be distinguished from the former, so as to make two several oblations ; no more than the sprinkling the blood, and burn- ing the flesh of the same animal, under the Law, made the one animal to be two. It may be justly said, that the whole animal was in some measure consecrated to God, by having it’s blood sprinkled on the altar; but in a more perfect manner still, by being in whole or in part laid on the fire; for by this means it became “the bread” or meat “ of God,” in the Levitical language; and the reader will not want a mystagogue to help him in applying this to the Sacrifice of the Eucharist.
There are two considerable inferences, which follow from what we have been proving. The first is, that the Eucharist was by the ancients believed to be made the Body and Blood of Christ, not by the faith of the receiver or communicant, but the power of the Holy Ghost, or Divine benediction, im- parted to it by means of the invocation: the other is, that the primitive Christians expected to receive no other Body and Blood, but the Bread and Wine thus sanctified.
1. It is evident that they believed the Eucharist to be The faith of made the Body and Blood, not by the faith of the communi- {πὸ τομαὶ 41 ¢. p. 68. Ap. |. 39. rc. p. 08. Ap. cp. og. Ap,
CHAP. 1.
does not make the Bread the Body.
Reserva- tion of the Sacrament proves that the ancients believed the conse- eration to be perma- nent.
342 HOW THE SACRAMENT
cant, but by the power of the Holy Ghost, or Divine bene- diction, imparted to it by means of the invocation: (I mean perfectly and finally imparted by this means, not exclusively of the words of institution and the oblation.) And this I sup- pose fully appears from those authorities above cited; and if any doubt of it, I must desire him to give himself the leisure of reviewing the passages produced, to shew that the ancients esteemed the symbols to be made the Body and Blood by the supervening energy of the Spirit; and those under the last head, which prove that they thought the words of insti- tution, the oblation, and invocation, to be effectual for ren- dering the elements the spiritual mysterious Body and’ Blood. And this further appears from their way of distributing the Communion, which has before been mentioned. The adminis- trator affirms what he gives to be the Body or Blood, without any certain knowledge whether the receiver had faith or not; the receiver answers ‘ Amen,’ and by this gives his assent and consent to the affirmation of the administrator, before he had actually received what was held forth to him. And in- deed, if the Eucharist were not the Body and Blood before distribution, it could not be made so by any post-fact of the communicants ; for faith can give existence to nothing, can- not alter the nature of things. But I apprehend that this may be further proved from the practice of the primitive Church, in reserving some part of the Eucharistical Bread and Wine; for this proves not only that they thought it the Body and Blood, without any respect to the faith of the receiver, but that its consecration was permanent, and re- mained after the holy action was at an end. What was not received by any at the Holy Table could not there be made the Body and Blood by the faith of the communicant ; and yet if they did not believe it to be the Body and Blood, for what purpose should they reserve it? That the holy Eucharist was reserved in the Church or in the Bishop’s house, is a thing so well known, that I see no occasion to repeat what others have said; but St. Basil affords us an ample testimony that the Eucharist was reserved in some places, even by the laity; and that it was as effectually the Eucharist, as if it had been really received at the Altar. These are his words‘, “In
t d. p. 23. Ap.
WAS CONSECRATED OF OLD. 343
Alexandria and in Egypt, every one of the laity has the Com- munion in his own house; for when the Priest has consum- mated the Sacrifice, and distributed It, he that takes It ought in reason to believe, that he so partakes and receives It, as that he partakes of the whole together in every part from him who distributed It.” We have heard Tertullian" already advising the laymen in one case to this practice. And he has another remarkable passage to this purpose in lib. ii. ad uxorem, where he tells a Christian woman, that if she had a heathen for her husband, he would not know “ what It was that she tasted privately before any other victuals, and if he know that It is bread, yet he will not believe It to be what It is called*.” Which words, though they are in other re- spects dark, for which reason I have not made use of them under any other head of my discourse; yet I think it very evident that even women in Africa were permitted to reserve the Eucharist in their houses, and to receive at home at dis- cretion, in Tertullian’s time. Nay, we are certain that this practice was much more ancient than Tertullian, at least as to the Bishop’s reserving some portions of It. For St. Ire- nzeus, in his letter to Victor, tells him, that his predecessors, the Bishops of Rome, though they did not keep Easter in the same manner that other Bishops did, yet “sent the Eucha- rist” to those Bishops’. The story of the sick Priest’s send- ing the Eucharist, which he had ready consecrated by him, to Serapion, a lapsed communicant, but a penitent and now at the point of death, as reported by Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, is very remarkable to this purpose”. And even Justin Martyr® testifies, that Deacons did not only give the Eucharist to them that were present, but “ carried It to those who were absent.” Now certainly the primitive Fathers never thought of sending mere bread and wine to their brethren or to the faithful who could not attend the public congregation; and consequently, they thought the benedic- tion which they had received on the Lord’s Table was not transient, so as to cease as soon as the celebration was con-
Bei pes. Ap: ¥ Irenzus, p. 466 of Grabe’s ed.
x [**Non sciet maritus quid secreto See Euseb. Eccl. Hist., lib. vi. ante omnem cibum gustes? et sisci- c 44, verit panem, non Illum credit esse Qui aa. p. 2. Ap.
dicitur ?”—P. 169. ed. Paris. 1664. ]
SECT. ik
CHAP. Il.
————the Body and Blood of Christ depended on the faith of
Ancients expected to receive no Body of Christ, but the Eucha- ristical.
344 HOW THE SACRAMENT
cluded; and therefore they did not imagine that their being
those who did eat or drink It. The words of St. Hilary seem to sound to a contrary sense, viz.°, “ By the declaration of the Lord, and by our faith, it is truly His Flesh and Blood.” But these words may import no more than that by the decla- ration of the Lord and our faith we are assured or have a fuil conviction, that they are the Body and Blood; not that the faith of the communicant makes them to be so. How- ever the authority of a single Father, that was not very ancient, can by no means stand against the whole stream of antiquity.
2. The other inference is, that the primitive Church ex- pected to receive no other Body and Blood of Christ, but the Bread and Wine thus consecrated. They had no occasion to desire any other. For though they believed it to be Bread and Wine, yet they were at the same time of opinion that they were filled with all that Divine grace and efficacy that His natural Body was; and that if they had had His very natural Body, and had had stomachs and consciences to have eaten It, It could not have conveyed to them any benefit, which was not as effectually communicated to them by the Eucharistical Body and Blood. Was His natural Body anointed with the Spirit? so was His Sacramental; was His natural Body a spiritual, life-giving Body? so was His Sacramental; was His natural Body made a Sacrifice for the life of men? so was His Sacramental, as has been shewed at large ; so that it will be very difficult for a man to imagine any reason why they should have any thoughts of receiving two Bodies of Christ. Nay, they could not but know that if they had the very natural Body, It would have been impos- sible to receive It; for neither their teeth nor their appetites would have served them; and this notion carries so much absurdity with it, that I shall add no more but the seomma which St. Augustine made use of against the Manicheans ; “Do you expect that any one should thrust Christ into your jaws, as the most proper sepulchre‘ ?” If others please them-
b a. p. 20. Ap. 1. 12. pulture, faucibus vestris ?’”—Contra © [“ Ore aperto expectatis quis in- Faustum Manicheum, lib. xx. cap. 11. ferat Christum, tanquam optime se- tom. vi. p. 155. ed. Par. 1635.]
WAS CONSECRATED OF OLD. 345
selves with a fancy of devouring the natural Body of Christ in- sEcr. tellectually, or by faith, let me ask them whether they suppose Ξ This natural Body present in the Eucharist or not. If It be present, It is so in an invisible manner; and for the natural Body of Christ to be present in ten thousand places at once, is impossible in the nature of things; and I cannot but think, that it is as impossible for It to be present in an invisible manner, as to be in several places at the same time. It can therefore be only present in the imaginations of men, and consequently their eating of It must be only imaginary; and if It were present at every Eucharist in a visible manner, this would be so far from feeding our faith, that it would in reality destroy it. For “ Faith is the substance” or confidence “ of things not seen ;” and if we had the enjoyment of the sub- stance, our faith and hope must presently vanish away. If they believe that they eat the natural Body of Christ by that faith by which they are persuaded that this Body of Christ suffered for their sins, and that this Body of Christ is now at God’s right hand, I will only say that this is not that eating of His Flesh or Body which we are now speaking of, and which is peculiar to the Eucharist. For they who entertain this notion do at the same time suppose that they may as effectually eat His Flesh in any other act of religion, as in the Sacrament; and all this I believe to be the invention of men, and not so much as an ens rationis, but a mere creature of fancy. And as for any personal spiritual Body of Christ, Which communicates Itself to faithful people, Which Barclay calls the heavenly seed or the light within; It is, I dare affirm, as far from the truth and from the judgment of the primitive Church, and of the Apostles and holy penmen, as this eight- teenth century is from the first and purest age of Christianity. But I apprehend some of my readers may, notwithstanding what I have yet said, suspect that the ancients did believe that they had and received the very natural Body and Blood in the Holy Eucharist; and therefore I shall,
Seventhly, consider some seeming excesses of the ancients on this head. Now,
(1. In the first place it may be objected, that the Fathers seeming seem to speak of a sort of worship due to the Sacrament ; and theanci τῇ
theancients this must, with good reason, sound very harsh in the ears of considered.
GHA P. II.
They did
not pay to Divine
honour.
346 SEEMING EXCESSES OF
Protestants, who believe the idolatry of the Papists, in wor- shipping the host, to be one of the greatest abominations of the Church of Rome. The passages of the ancients, which give umbrage to this objection, are that of Theodoret*, “ they are believed and venerated as really bemg What they are believed to be;” and that of Cyril of Jerusalem®, who directs his young communicant to take the Body of Christ with his hands framed into somewhat like a throne; and to approach the Cup in a bowing posture, and with a sort of veneration or profound reverence. The Clementine Liturgy exhorts people‘ to receive It “‘ with awe and reverence,” and to come to It “as to the Body of the King.” And that of St. Augus- tine looks the same way’, where by “the footstool” of God he understands “the earth,’ by “the earth” Christ’s Flesh Which He has given us to eat, and no man eats It, says He, nisi prius adoraverit, “till he has first made adoration or obeisance ; therefore,” as he adds, “ when you stoop, or bend down your body to any earth, look not upon it as earth, but as that Holy One in honour of Whom you adore the foot- stool,” &c. I must confess I think the words guamlibet ter- ram cannot without a very unnatural force be wrested to mean any thing but the Eucharistical Body, especially be- cause it is evident by what follows, that he had that Sacra- ment in his eye; and it is probable there may be other passages in the ancients, like these already mentioned; and I desire my reader, in order to take off the force of this objection, to consider,
(1.) That Theodoret does, in this very Dialogue, and in the words immediately foregoing, declare, that “ the Bread departs not from its own nature,” &c. as he has been before cited ; and no one can believe, that a man of Theodoret’s sense would pay Divine honour to bread ; nay, he himself expressly declares his mind to the contrary ; for, says he", “It is the last folly to worship what is eaten ;” and', “ How can any man in his wits either call that a god, which he abominates and abhors, or even what is offered to the true God and eaten by him- self?” He is indeed in these places speaking directly of the
4 m. p. 46. Ap. 1. 14. 5) Ss De ose Δ'.1. ἢ. e i. p. 19. Ap. ‘a. p. 45. Ap. fd. p. 84. Ap. 1. 18. he. p. 45. Ap.
THE FATHERS CONSIDERED. 947
reason of God’s forbidding to the Jews the eating of some such things, as were worshipped as gods by the heathen ; and of the Jews being commanded by Moses’s law to offer those creatures, which were worshipped by the heathen, in sacrifice to the true God; but it is not to be supposed, that such a writer as Theodoret would have expressed himself in this manner, if he had known of any Divine worship paid by Christians to what they offered and eat in the Sacrament. It is therefore evident, that when he speaks of a veneration paid to the Eucharist, he can only mean such a decent and reverential respect as is due to a creature sanctified to such excellent purposes, as the Eucharist is; and the same may be said of the other citations; and to convince you, that when they speak of venerating the Sacrament, they meant no other honour but what was due to bread appointed for these purposes; I will desire you to observe, that Ambrose supposes that Abra- ham paid this respect to Melchisedec’s bread and wine. Fori Melchisedec “ brought forth,” says he, “ what Abraham vene- rated,” as being the symbols of Christ’s Body and Blood. For it must be owned, that they looked on the consecrated symbols as creatures not to be treated otherwise than as the representative Body and Blood of Christ, consecrated by the Spirit of God; and this must be St. Augustine’s meaning, when he says, “ Look not on It as earth, but as the Holy One.” Not as the personal Christ Jesus Himself, but as Bread and Wine deputed to be His Body and Blood; Which Body and Blood, by a usual metonymy, are often called Christ; and that this is his meaning is very evident from the next words, viz. “It is His footstool which you adore, for you adore on His account; therefore he subjoined, ‘adore His footstool, because it is holy.’ Who is holy? He, im honour of Whom you adore His footstool.” He clearly distinguishes between Christ Himself, and His ‘footstool,’ or ‘earth. He makes all the honour or reverence paid to the latter to be done, not so much for it’s own sake, as for His Whose footstool it is; so that, instead of making the Eucharist to be, or to contain the whole Person of Christ Jesus, he clearly makes it His footstool; but at the same time supposes, that an honour is
dh. p. 27. Ap:
SECT. ib
CHAP. Il.
Gen. xlii. 6.
348 SEEMING EXCESSES OF
to be paid to it; and what the honour was, it will not be hard to conceive, if we consider,
(2.) That προσκυνεῖν and adorare do not in the ecclesi- astical language necessarily import worshipping any thing with Divine honour. It is certain that the Hebrew nny does ordinarily signify no more than to ‘bow down,’ not so much as ‘to prostrate one’s-self,’ except myn" be added. The Greek turns it by προσκυνεῖν, the Latin by adorare, (see Gen. xxii. 7, and the parallel places,) and these are the words used by Theo- doret and St. Augustine; and these words are very far from importing Divine worship, unless you will suppose that Abra- ham made gods of the children of Heth in the place now cited; nor will St. Augustine’s prosternis imply Divine honour, except you will give it for granted that Joseph’s brethren deified him, when “they bowed themselves” in ter- ram, ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, “to the ground” to him. It must be owned that St. Augustine’s way of expression is not very clear in this place; but the most he can mean is, that some in his age did prostrate themselves, when they approached the Eucharistical Body: but it is very evident that by this they intended no more, if they did it in St. Augustine’s sense, than to shew their respects to the footstool of Jesus Christ ; or if they meant any higher degree of worship, it was directed to Christ Himself. Cyril of Jerusalem, besides the word προσκύνησις, uses σέβασμα; but neither will this word neces- sarily import Divine worship; except you will suppose that as often as the holy penmen called the emperor Σεβαστὸς, they meant thereby that he was to be worshipped as God; and indeed this word being in those ages so familiarly applied to the emperors, it cannot be wondered that a Christian writer should speak of the honour which he thought due to the Sacrament, in this style; and the Clementine Liturgy is the best comment upon it, when it admonishes men to approach the Sacrament as the body of a king, that is, with an honour or reverence very far from what is properly due to God.
(3.) It is very evident that the ancients did not, could not worship the Eucharist with Divine honour ; because they did not believe that the Divinity of Christ was hypostatically united to the Bread and Wine, as they did believe It to be united to His natural Body. Here Theodoret is very
THE FATHERS CONSIDERED. 349
express‘, “Our Lord did not promise to give His invisible nature, but His Body, for the life of the world; ‘for the Bread’ says He, ‘I will give is My Flesh,’ &c., and in deliver- ing the Divine mysteries He said, ‘ This is My Body;’” and again!, “Our Saviour taking the symbol said not, ‘ This is My Divinity ; but, ‘This is My Body.’” Cyril of Alexandria makes the same distinction, when speaking of the Eucharist he says™, “ We must not think the Body of the Lord a com- mon thing, because the Divinity cannot be eaten.” And so does St. Ambrose", “ If thou offerest His Body to be trans- figured on the Altar, but dost not distinguish the nature of His Divinity and of His Body, it is said to thee also (as it was to Cain, according to the LXX, Gen. iv. 7), If thou offerest rightly, but dividedst not rightly, thou hast sinned? ;” and the Church of Rome is grossly guilty of this sin, by pre- tending to make an oblation of the whole Christ, God and Man. Epiphanius? says of the Eucharistical Body, that “as to It’s power It is without sense ;” when therefore St. Hilary says’, that “we receive the Word” in the Eucharist, and when other ancients speak of Jesus Christ Himself as offered and received there, they must be understood as expressing their judgment, that they were united to the Second Divine Person by means of the especial presence of the Spirit in the Eucharist. And when the ancients say that the Spirit “de- scended” and “ gave a contact” to the holy symbols, or that It filled the gifts with “ energy, power,” or the like, they do not mean that the Holy Ghost was united to the Sacrament, as the soul is to a human body, or as the Divine nature was to Christ’s natural Body; but that the Eucharistical Body and Blood were so affected by the Spirit, in a way impercep- tible by us, as to exert Itself in a peculiar manner in and by them, in producing such effects in the receivers as are bene- ficial to their bodies and souls. The Spirit was never hypo- statically united to the natural Body of Christ, but yet did exert Itself in a miraculous manner in and by that Body of His; and though now we believe It ceases to act miracu-
© ἢ, p. 46. Ap. ° [Οὐκ ἐὰν ὀρθῶς προσενέγκῃς, dp- 1k, p. 46. Ap. θῶς δὲ μὴ διέλῃς, ἥμαρτες ; |
m h. p. 44. Ap. P 6. p. 22. Ap. 1. 6. =n. p. 27. Ap. 4 a. p. 20. Ap.
SECT. de
350 SEEMING EXCESSES OF
GAP: lously, yet we doubt not but that It is, upon all occasions,
τ ready to work in It’s usual method, and to convey It’s graces
by It’s wonted channels to the whole Church and every mem-
ber; but it does not therefore follow, that the Eucharistical symbols do upon that account deserve Divine worship.
(4.) Nay, we have certain evidence and direct proof that the Eucharist was not worshipped with Divine honour, from St. Chrysostom’s Liturgy ; where" the Priest says to God the Father, “Look down on those who have bowed their heads to Thee; for they bowed not to flesh and blood, but to Thee the tremendous God.” The prayer ends with these words, “by the grace—of Jesus Christ, with Whom blessed art Thou with the most Holy Ghost ;” which I add as a demon- stration, that the prayer was directed to the First Person of the blessed Trinity. And the council of Constantinople so often mentioned, though it speaks of “ honouring the image of Christ,” and says, “the image of His Body (the Eucharist) was wrought in a very honourable manner ;” nay, though it declare, that “as Christ’s natural Body was holy, as being divinely sanctified, so His adoptive Body is holy, as being divinely consecrated by the grace of sanctification ;” yet they expressly add®, “ that He commanded His image, that is, ma- terial bread, taken from [the main mass of oblations] to be offered, not resembling the shape of man, lest idolatry should be introduced.” Now as this does evidently suppose that it would be idolatry to pay Divine worship to the Host, though it did appear in the form of Christ’s human Flesh, so it does as clearly suppose, that Christ instituted this Sacrament in Bread and Wine, in order to prevent any Divine honour which the superstitions of men might have been tempted to pay to it, if this image had been a human portraiture. And the later these authorities are, the more weighty they ought to be esteemed, as to our present purpose. For nobody, 1 presume, suspects the three first centuries of so criminal a practice as this of worshipping the Eucharist as the very Christ both God and Man; but now as the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom (so called) is of an uncertain age, and has, since it’s first composure, received many additions, so we are sure this synod of Constantinople was held in the year 754, and
' g. p. 58. Ap. 5. Ὁ. 51. Ap, l. 21.
THE FATHERS CONSIDERED. 351
this is an irrefragable evidence given by 338 very judicious
SECT. ie
and pious Bishops, that the worshipping of the Eucharist was ——~—
even thenthought idolatrous ; much more may it be presumed, that any synod of Bishops in the foregoing ages of the Church would have made the same determination, if any occasion had been offered them to declare their judgments in this matter. It were no difficult thing to give my reader the opinion of several single writers of the same age, and some even after this; but I have said enough on this head to shew, that though the Fathers looked on the Eucharist as the most honourable institution of our religion, yet they did not think that Divine honour was due to it, whatever some may rashly conclude from the words of the ancients first above cited. Nay, it is known that this practice was not settled in the Church of Rome before the thirteenth century, in the pope- dom of Honorius the Third.
2. It has been objected against the Fathers, that they frequently call the Eucharist, not only Christ’s Body and Blood, but His “own proper” Body and Blood; for so suus and ἴδιος may in strictness be rendered ; though I must con- fess I have not myself been so punctilious as to give them always this rendition. Now
In answer to this, I will transcribe the words of the most In what
excellent Dr. Grabe in his notes on Irenzust. “ First he owns that Irenzeus did not call the Bread and Wine figures
sense they believed the Bread 2 Christ’s
types, memorials, because this would not have sufficiently own Body.
expressed his judgment ; for he believed the holy elements to be His very Body and Blood, in some sense, though not substantially.” Then he cites Maxentius, who says, “ Pro- priety is variously understood; for the Church is Christ’s own or proper Body—and every one of the faithful is His own or proper member.—The Bread also, of which the whole Church partakes in memory of our Lord’s Passion, is His own or proper Body". And this is indeed a demonstration, that in the judgment of Maxentius, who wrote in the sixth cen- tury, it is not the same thing to say it is Christ’s “own
t P. 396. ille, quem universa Ecclesia in memo-
“ [‘* Proprietas multis intelligitur riam Dominice Passionis participat, modis. Nam et Ecclesia Corpus Ejus Corpus Ejus est.’’—Dial., lib. ii. cap.
dicitur— Et unusquisque Fidelium 17. membrum Ejus est.—Sed et Panis
HAP. ἯΙ
——— for he expressly calls it ‘ Bread,’ and yet Christ’s own Body,
That the Fathers did not believe a change of substance in the Eucharist.
352 SEEMING EXCESSES OF
proper” Body, and to say it is His personal substantial Body:
in the same breath. Then he cites Gregory Nyssen for say- ing, Christ’s “ own or proper Body, which is the Church.” And Maxentius used the same expression in relation to the Church, in the words just before produced. And indeed this objection can be of no force, because it affects so very ancient a writer as Irenzeus, who yet says no more than St. Justin Martyr and St. Ignatius, though in other words. His own or proper Body means no more than that it was not a false, alien, or counterfeit Body.
3. The Fathers frequently mention a change made in the © elements, which the Greeks express by μεταποιεῖν, μεταβάλ- Rew, μεταῤῥυθμίζειν, μεταστοιχειοῦν, μετασκευάζειν ; the La- . tins by muto, transmuto, transfiguro, &c.
To this, Protestants, in answering the allegations of Papists, have truly replied, that there may be a change of quality, where the substance yet remains. And the elements are changed by the consecration from being common bread and wine, into the mysterious spiritual Body and Blood. And the ancients did indeed believe an imperceptible change made in the holy symbols. The most observable passages to this purpose in the Fathers cited by me are those words of Am- — brose, who supposes the symbolical Body offered in the com- memorative oblation* to be yet further “ transfigured” on the Altar; but it is certain that the Latin ¢ransfigurare there used does sometimes signify no more than a change of qua- lity. So Calepine, in his Dictionary, cites Plinyy for saying, Transfigurantur amygdale ex dulcibus in amaras; “ Almonds? are transfigured from sweet to bitter.” And again, St. Am- brose supposes that* “Christ in the Eucharist changes the species of the elements.” And though this seems a hard saying, yet it will by no means do any service to the Papists ; for they, by the species, understand the accidents of the Bread and Wine, and they assert, as is true, that these are not changed. Nor can it be supposed that this Father should affirm that the bread loses it’s whiteness, the wine
* n. p. 27. Ap. ii. p. 743. ed. Lugd. 1681. ] ¥ (Nat. Hist., lib. xvii. cap. 24.] eh Hi ara eae a Ese * [Sub voce ‘ Transfiguro.’—Tom.
THE FATHERS CONSIDERED. 353
it’s taste and inebriating quality. Therefore by the species SECT. he most probably means the logical species, the two sorts of : elements, viz. the bread and wine, which are changed, as has been said, as to their insensible qualities, not in sub- stance; so in this very paragraph, St. Ambrose must be taken, when he says, “before the benediction it is called another species, or sort of thing.” And this I apprehend must be his meaning; because he elsewhere expressly calls” that ‘ Bread, which Christ gave to His Apostles. And Theo- doret shews, that it was not at all inconsistent to believe a change, yet at the same time to believe, that the substance of bread and wine remained. No Protestant can more strongly affirm that the elements do not lose their nature and essence than this Father, and yet no man can more plainly assert a change than he does; for, says he®*, “ Christ would have us believe a change made by grace.” And in the very paragraph, which is so directly against transubstan- tiation, he yet declares‘, “that by the invocation the ele- ments are changed, and become other things.” And there- fore when the Liturgies pray, that the Bread and Wine, or the gifts, may be made or changed into the Body and Blood; it is most rational to understand them as the an- cients did, and particularly Theodoret, not as if they ex- pected that they should be miraculously converted into the personal Body and Blood of Christ, but that by an internal spiritual alteration, they might become the Body and Blood in real power and effect. It is true, Julius Firmicus® calls the Sacrament “the substance of Majesty ;” and Gelasius, a “Divine substance ;”’ but I have before shewed, that they only mean the elements sanctified by the Holy Ghost, which is so true, that the latter calls the Eucharistical Body ‘Bread’ in the very same paragraph.
4, But further, St. Ambrose asserts‘, “that the nature is changed ;” and St. Hilary’, that “Christ does naturally re- main in us, who receive the Word in the meat or food of the Lord; and that He mingles the nature of His Flesh with the Eternal Nature, (that is, the Holy Spirit,) under the Sacra-
> a. p. 26. Ap. © [p. 17. Ap.] © i. p. 46. Ap. Sri Sy fis of Ἵ τη, p. 46. Ap. 1. 8. & a. p. 20. Ap.
JOHNSON. ἃ ἃ
CHAP. Il.
Tn what sense they believed a change of nature,
354 SEEMING EXCESSES OF
ment of His Flesh, to be communicated to us; and that we have the nature of His Flesh.”
Now that the reader may be convinced, that these ex- pressions are not to be taken in the strictest sense, he is to observe, that this Father is here arguing against the Arians, who would allow of no unity betwixt the Divme Father and Son but that of will or consent: im opposition to this, he asserts a natural union; and because the Arians urged, that the Father and Son were one only, as Christians are or ought to be one, St. Hilary asserts that Christians are one by the “nature of one faith,’ and calls this “a natural union.” He asserts further, that they are “one by Baptism ;” and says, “they who are one by one thing or means are one by nature.” Then he proceeds to shew we are one with Christ by eating His Eucharistical Body, and this he calls a “natural unity ;” but it is evident he meant only some- thing more than a unity of consent im all these cases, ex- cepting that of the Divine Father and Son, for it is im- possible he should think that all Christians are but one individual natural substance; and it was sufficient for him to say, that there is more than a unity of consent between Christians that are baptized and are communicants ; for they are animated by the same Holy Spirit, and have heavenly life imparted and continued to them by the same internal and external means, and have the same seed of immortality com- municated to them by the same spiritual meat and drink, and are united to Christ ther common Head by these and other unknown or ineffable bonds and ligaments. I can- not in reason suppose that the Father intended to assert, that the union between Christians did in all respects equal the unity betwixt the Father and Son ; but only, that it was somewhat more than the Arians allowed, viz. an agreement of affections. And indeed it is evident that he meant a mys- terious union; and so he explains himself by saying, “ He mingles the nature of His Flesh with the Eternal Nature, under a Sacrament or mystery; and we truly take His Flesh under a mystery :” for by these expressions the words ‘nature’ and ‘natural’ are made to abate in their significa- tions when applied to the Eucharist, and not to have so much power or import as when applied to the Divine Father and
THE FATHERS CONSIDERED. 909
Son. He expresses both unions by the same words, but 5ΕΟΤ. qualifies the meaning of them when he speaks of our union Ξ with Christ by partaking of the Eucharistical Body. And though the word ‘ nature,’ with it’s adjective and adverb, may seem of too full an import to be used in this place, yet it is to be considered that there are scarce any words in the Latin dictionary of a more extensive signification. And since it is so common for us to say of a man, that his nature is changed, when we only mean his dispositions and inward qualities, we ought not to judge too severely of St. Hilary or St. Ambrose on this account. And indeed we have little less than demonstration, that St. Ambrose, by “the change of nature,” means nothing else but a change of quality; for before he comes to the end of the paragraph he says, “ Before the benediction of heavenly words it is called another sort [of thing],” meaning bread; “after the benediction, the Body of Christ is meant” or represented; for though significatur imports more than a bare typical shady signification, yet it necessarily implies also a distinction between the figure and the thing signified, that is, the Eucharistical and natural Body. Nay, and a little before he has these words, “It is the true Flesh of Christ, Which was crucified and buried; it is therefore truly the Sacrament or mystery of His Flesh.” So that “to be Christ’s Flesh,” and “to be the Sacrament of His Flesh,” is with St. Ambrose the same thing.
5. There is another charge against the ancients on this head, which is, that they often speak of the change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Blood as miraculous ; and therefore must mean some other change than what I have before mentioned. Thus St. Cyril of Jerusalem" and Gaudentius', to render the conversion of bread and wine into the Body and Blood more credible, argue from Christ’s mira- culous turning the water into wine. St. Ambrose* argues the same from Aaron’s rod being turned into a serpent, the waters of Egypt being turned into blood, and such like. To this it may be replied,
(1.) It does not follow that the Fathers thought the change whether wrought in the Eucharist to be miraculous, from their en- oe forcing the belief of it by appealing to the miraculous works eae
Hi b.:p. 18: Ap. ia. p. 80. Ap. 1. 10. Slop 2is Ap: ΑΔ Ὁ
CHAP. ΠΕ
1 Cor xe
356 SEEMING EXCESSES OF
wrought by Christ or the Apostles and the Prophets. They might intend to argue a majori ad minus, if God did the greater, much more can He do the less. Cyril’s argument does evidently proceed in this manner; for! havimg men- tioned the miracle of turning the water into wine, he adds, “ Shall not Christ be much the rather acknowledged to give the enjoyment of His Body and Blood to the sons of the bride-chamber?” And it is probable the others meant the same. I suppose that the Apostle St. Paul, when he calls the manna and the water of the rock the same spiritual meat and drink with that in the Eucharist, means that it was the same in type and figure, as being a very signal token of God’s good-will toward them; and that the prefiguration consisted not so much in the nutritive power of the manna and water, (for if this had been all that the Apostle had meant, then all the wholesome victuals and liquors that were ever eaten or drunk might be said to be the same spiritual meat and drink), as in the manner by which they were prepared, viz. by the special providence and power of God. And this indeed is the main ground on which the manna and water are made types of the Sacrament; for by this it appears, that both the type and archetype are singular specimens of God’s bounty and power in making provision for His own people: but who therefore will pretend to argue that because the manna and the water of the rock were furnished by a miracle, that there- fore the Eucharist is made so by the same means? And it is fit we should interpret the Fathers with the same equity which we use in interpreting Scripture.
(2.) It is certain that the ancients believed the Eucharis- tical Body and Blood to be made so by the concurrence of the Divine Spirit, and that it was therefore a preternatural work ; for all the graces of the Spirit must be allowed to be beyond the power of nature. Now I believe it will be very hard for the most metaphysical head precisely to determine which of these works may in strictness be called miraculous, which not. And we are not to suppose, that the simplicity of the primitive Fathers disposed them to make such nice and subtle distinctions as later ages have done; and therefore I should not wonder if some of them had in express words
1b. p. 18. Ap.
THE FATHERS CONSIDERED. 357
affirmed it to be miraculous, as yet I am not sensible they have done. Theodoret expresses the sense of the Church in this respect excellently well, when he says, that in the Eucha- rist™ “Christ did not change nature, but added grace to _ nature.” JI remember I have met somewhere with terrible reflections on St. Chrysostom for using some interjections of wonder, when he is speaking of the Holy Sacrament ; whereas if we will accept of the same language and expressions from Fathers, that we do from the men of our own age, we must allow some “miracles of nature” and much more of “ mira- cles of grace ;” and if any one shall take the Fathers or me to task on this score, I shall expect that they do exactly fix the standard of the power of nature, and then proceed to shew what works are only preternatural, not miraculous, and to settle exact bounds and limits betwixt them. It is certain all miraculous works are preternatural; that all preternatural works are miraculous, I do not say; but I may have leave to say, that there is a great resemblance between them: and things that are alike in the main do often go under the same name with them that do not study niceties; and I believe there are many things done by a preternatural power which we should call miracles if we did not see them every day, for nothing seems miraculous that is usual.
I am sensible that the most learned Grabe has declared, in his notes on Irenzus", that Cyril of Jerusalem and Gregory Nyssen asserted that the “substance of Bread in the Eucha- rist is transformed into the Flesh of Christ, which He took of the Virgin;’” he directs us to Catech. Mystag. 4. of Cyril; and therefore meant, I suppose, the same which I above con- sidered, and in which I do not see that he positively deter- mines this point; and I am the rather willing to believe he does not, because he says® that “ the Body is given us in the type of Bread,” which seems to express his meaning that the Bread still remains; andP he only says it is not mere Bread but the Body. Now I can never believe that ‘ type’ signifies ‘accidents, as the Romish writers would persuade us; and when Irenzus and others say that it is not ‘mere Bread,’ we justly suppose that they give it for granted, by that ex- pression, that they thought it yet Bread as to it’s gross sub-
m i, p. 46. Ap. n p. 399. ° ¢, p. 18. Ap. P a. p. 18. Ap.
SECT. I.
Cyril of erusalem and Gre-
gory Nys-
sen charged by Dr. Grabe with the belief of a sub- stantial change, but this not certain.
Cc
CANE Il.
358 SEEMING EXCESSES OF
stance. And I think Cyril has an equal right with others to this interpretation. As to Gregory Nyssen, whose words you have in the Appendix‘, and which are the very same that Dr. Grabe seems to point at, it must be confessed that they look more this way than any other that I have yet met with of equal antiquity with him; and yet I cannot but say there are some passages in that long paragraph, which would incline one to think more favourably of him; as for instance, “ He that sees bread does after a sort see human body; for when that is in this, it becomes this ;” that is, when the bread is in the body, by nutrition it becomes part of the body. (So he had said before, “ when these [ Bread and Wine] are in me, they are Body and Blood :’’) and “ the Divine Body of Christ, receiving the nutriment of Bread, was the same with it ma manner; and in one case” (he means that of our Saviour’s Person) “the grace of the Word sanctified the Body, which was composed of Bread, and in some sort was Bread ; in the other case (the Eucharist) the Bread is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer, passing into the Body of the Word, not by being eaten and drunk, but forthwith changed ;” that is, not by digestion, as Bread and Wine became His natural Body, but all of a sudden. By this it appears that it was the Father’s design to render the alteration in the Eucharist very credible, and not so operose as it appears to be at first sight, on supposition that bread is changed into human flesh; and therefore undoubtedly supposes such a change as other of the ancients do not; but still, whether he meant, as Dr. Grabe supposes, that the substance of Bread was changed, I dare not say. He rather seems to me to aim at proving that there is no occasion for a change of substance; for he all along argues that bread and human flesh are as it were the same thing; and that all the odds between the Eucharistical Bread being made the Body of Christ, and common bread becoming His Body while He was alive here on earth, was this, that in the former the alteration was made without mastication or digestion, by the elements being added to Christ’s natural Body by a Divine power. However he declares his intention to explain the change ‘in a manner possible to nature ;” and therefore could never have reconciled himself to transubstan- 4 a. p. 28, 24. Ap.
THE FATHERS CONSIDERED. 359
tiation; and then too he supposes the Bread and Wine to become the Body and Blood, by being ‘ added’ to His natural Body and Blood; and not by having the substantial Body and Blood advanced" into the Eucharist instead of the Bread and Wine, as the Romanists suppose. And we have already heard him say® that “ Bread after invocation is called, and is, the Body of Christ ; and he does not directly contradict this here, but rather countenances it by saying that even Christ’s natural Body was in some sort Bread, ἕο. The Father under- took to philosophize upon a mystery; and this is one way to render it still more a mystery; and it would be strange in- deed, if the writers of the Christian Church for four hundred years together should never have dropped any words upon a subject so very nice and mysterious, that will not bear the scrutiny of a very critical and censorious age such as this of ours; and therefore I never thought it necessary to maintain that none of the ancients were ever guilty of any excess in this particular, but that the generality of the most valuable writers asserted no more than what I at first laid down. If therefore Gregory Nyssen have shewed himself to be mis- taken, in pretending to explain a mystery by principles of philosophy or by asserting a change of substance, I appre- hend that in this respect he goes alone; and if my reader, notwithstanding what has been said by me or others on this head, do still believe, that Cyril or St. Hilary St. Ambrose or St. Augustine do assert transubstantiation or the paying Divine honour to the Eucharistical Body and Blood, I do hereby solemnly declare that, when I am convinced that they are indeed guilty of so gross an error, I am ready to enter my protest against them as to these particulars. And I sup- pose it is very evident, that though it should be granted that these venerable names have, in the several passages above produced, departed from the sense of the Church in those ages ; yet in other places they have said what is enough to ‘shew, that this was not their settled judgment, but proceeded from haste or inadvertency or the sudden flash of a warm imagination; but that they generally owned an invisible mysterious change is what is very evident from several cita- tions already inserted, and might be proved from many more,
© [In the first ed. Johnson employs the term ‘ adduced.’ | sc. p. 20. Ap.
SECT. 1.
360 THE EUCHARIST
CHAP. if it were to my present purpose. I will only leave with my ἘΞ yeader the words of Gaudentius', “Let us not pretend to break that most solid bone, ‘This is My Body, This is My Blood ;’ and if any thing remain which is not understood, let it be burnt by the ardent fire of faith.”
CRAP. PL. .SHCT. 11
That the Eucharistical Bread and Wine, or Body and Blood, are to be offered for the acknowledgment of God’s dominion and other attributes, and for procuring Divine blessings, especially remission of sin.
Havine fully shewed what is offered in the Eucharist, I now proceed to consider the ends for which it is to be of- fered. Dr. Spencer, when he considers sacrifices in respect to their end, is very minute in mentioning particulars ; but it is observable, that they all centre in the two ends above specified. He reckons five sorts of sacrifices; but three of τ΄ them are easily to be reduced to the first head, viz. acknow- ledging God’s dominion and other attributes ; for such were, in the first place, “whole burnt offerings or honorary sacri- fices, intended for the rendering of honour to God and ac- knowledging His dominion ;” such were “ the peace-offermgs which expressed a mind well and devoutly affected toward God,” that is, sensible of His goodness, and disposed to make all possible returns; such were ‘the sacrifices of thanks- giving, or vows, which signified gratitude toward God ;” and indeed these latter differed from the former more in name than in reality ; and his two other sorts of sacrifices are as clearly reducible to the other head of procuring Divine bless- ing, especially remission of sin; for according to him, “the euctic sacrifices were for the obtaining of any blessing; the expiatory, for the appeasing of God;” see the Introduction. Therefore Mr. Calvin takes no notice of any other ends but these two, viz. “ honouring” or rendering our thanks to “ God for His favours,” and “ pacifying His wrath ;” and so omits
tb, p. 80. Ap.
A SACRIFICE OF THANKSGIVING. 361
any other benefits to be obtained by Sacrifice; in which SECT. respect his definition is imperfect. When Bellarmine makes the ends of Sacrifice to be “the acknowledgment of our own weakness and the Divine greatness,” he may be under- stood to mean much the same thing. For in recognising His dominion, goodness, and providence, we acknowledge His greatness ; and when we address ourselves to Him for pardon of sin and other blessings, this is a confession of our own disability to confer these favours on ourselves or others, and of God’s power in these respects. I proceed therefore,
First, to shew, that one and the primary end of the Eu- First end of charistical Christian Sacrifice is the acknowledgment of ae God’s dominion and other attributes ; and I must add, what S@tifice
acknow- is most especially implied, of His goodness, in redeeming the ledgment
world by Christ Jesus, which is the foundation of all other cecal spiritual mercies. And I apprehend, our adversaries them- τὸ selves do so far consent to this, as to own that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice of thanksgiving, and a recognition of all the blessings and favours we receive from God, and more parti- cularly of His sending His Son to die for us, and of all the inestimable mercies accruing to ourselves and others by this means: they only deny that the Bread and Wine or Eu- charistical Body and Blood are this Sacrifice; and would have it believed, that the verbal and mental praises are the only thing meant by this Sacrifice: and therefore the au- thorities produced under this head shall chiefly be such as do effectually prove, that the Sacrifice of thanksgiving in the Christian Church was, in the judgment of the ancients, an oblation not only of words and thoughts but of the material Bread and Wine. And first, St. Chrysostom says", “ the tremendous mysteries, that are full of salvation, which are consecrated offered or celebrated in every Communion, are called the Eucharist, because it is a memorial of many bene- fits; wherefore the Priest also bids us give thanks for the whole world—while the Sacrifice lies in open view.” The mysteries are the Sacramental Body and Blood; for this is the language of antiquity. And these mysteries are called the Eucharist, as being the memorials of the greatest bene-
κ 4. Ρ. 89. ἈΡ.
CHAP. Il.
362 THE EUCHARIST
fits ; these are the Sacrifices lying in open view ; and the verbal and mental praises are so far from being either the mys- teries or the memorial or the Sacrifice, that these latter are the motives or incentives to the former. For, because “the mysteries are memorials of great benefits, therefore the Priest bids us give thanks.” St. Augustine asserts*, “ that to sa- crifice to God, as we very often do, according to that only rite, by which He has commanded Sacrifice to be offered by the revelation of the New Testament, is part of that worship which is called Latria, and is due to God Alone.” I dare leave it to my adversaries to determine, what that only rite in the New Testament is, by which we offer Sacrifice. All our services are indeed a sacrifice, in an improper remote sense ; but there is one rite, by which alone we do it pro- perly, and by which we do a peculiar honour to God; and again’, “‘ Theosebia may be said to be the worship of God, which consists chiefly in this, that the mind be grateful ; therefore in that most true and singular Sacrifice, we are admonished to give thanks ; where the thanks is evidently distinguished from the Sacrifice; and indeed bare mental praise is no singular thing, but is common to all religions ; the Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ in a mystery is peculiar to ours. And because the principal blessing, which we commemorate in the Eucharist, is the Death of Christ, and the inward remembrance of it is by our adver- saries called the Sacrifice; see how much otherwise St. Au- gustine expresses himself in that observable place’, where he explains the manner, how Christians celebrated “ the memory of the Sacrifice, viz. by the holy oblation, and participation of the Body and Blood of Christ ; which is an unanswerable proof, that this Father looked on the commemoration to be a material one, and to consist not in thought and speech but in offermg and receiving the Sacramental Bread and Wine. The learned Mr. Bingham? cites Paulinus saying the follow- ing words of the Paratorium, the right-hand apartment of the Church, viz. Immolanti Hostias jubilationis Antistiti parat, “ It is for preparing the Sacrifice of jubilation,” that is, un-
* I. p. 36. Ap. 2 Book viii. chap. vi. [p. 459. ed. Υ O. p. 36. Ap. Straker. 1840. ] 4 Ἡ, p. 36. Ap.
A SACRIFICE OF THANKSGIVING. 363
questionably, the material Bread and Wine. Eusebius speaks SECT. very elegantly to this purpose”; “ We offer therefore to God = the Sacrifice of praise; we offer the Divine and venerable Sacrifice, which hath a decorous sanctity. We sacrifice in a new manner, according to the New Testament; we offer a clean Sacrifice ;᾽ and he proves it clean, because offered with a contrite heart. ‘ And we offer the prophetic incense, pre- senting to Him in every place the well-savoured oblation of a most virtuous theology by prayer to Him: therefore we offer both Sacrifice and incense ; the one, when we celebrate the memorial of the great Sacrifice according to the mys- teries delivered to us by Him, and when we present the Eucharist,” that is, the Sacrifice of thanksgiving “ to God for our salvation, by pious hymns and prayers; the other, when we offer ourselves, wholly consecrating ourselves to Him and His High-Priest the Word, cleaving to Him both in body and soul.” The sacrificing in a new manner can be meant of the Eucharist only; for all the other sacri- fices, even that of a contrite heart, were as old as David at least. This is the only Sacrifice peculiar to the New Testament; and he distinguishes the Mincha from the in- cense. The Mincha is the Sacramental Bread and Wine; the incense is, according to him, those inward holy dispo- sitions, which he calls a most virtuous theology, offered to God by prayer. Nay, he repeats this distinction again, and says, “we offer both Sacrifice and incense ;” and makes the memorial to be the Sacrifice, and the oblation of ourselves cleaving to Him both in body and soul, the incense; which is the very same with the virtuous ¢heology before mentioned. And he tells us, this memorial was celebrated by the mys- teries delivered by Christ, that is, His Sacramental Body and Blood; and that this memorial or Eucharist is offered by prayers and hymns, which therefore are to be distinguished from the memorial offered by them; and the reader will re- member, that St. Augustine has just now given us an ac- count what this memorial was, viz. the oblation and par- ticipation of the Sacramental Body and Blood, not a bare act of reminiscence. I have, in the first section of this second chapter, produced further proof that Eusebius’s me-
b g. p. 16. Ap.
CHAP. Il.
364 THE EUCHARIST
morial was a material Sacrifice, and therefore shall say no more of that matter in this place; but only observe, that a very great man®, in a most celebrated book upon the Eucha- rist, produces several of these passages from Eusebius to prove, that “the remembrance or commemoration is the Sacrifice ;” and yet presently cites Fulgentius¢ for saying’, “the Holy Catholic Church throughout all the world ceases not to offer the Sacrifice of Bread and Wine.” Origen’s opinion may be learned from those words of his‘, “ Let Celsus, as one that knows not God, offer his eucharistic sacrifices to demons; but we, appeasing the Creator of all things, eat the loaves offered with thanksgiving and prayer over the gifts, they being made a certain Holy Body by means of prayer.” When he tells us the loaves were offered or presented with prayer and thanksgiving, he gives us the reason why they were the Eucharistic Sacrifice of Christians. For it was his present business, to distinguish between the eucharistic sacrifices of the heathen and that which was offered by the worshippers of the true God. But none of the primitive © writers speak so directly and copiously to this purpose as— St. Irenzeus, even when he was speaking contemptuously of the Jewish sacrifices; what he says is as follows’, “The Prophets speak most fully, that God did in the Law enjoin certain observances for the sake of [the people] themselves, not as if He stood in need of their services; and again, God has plainly taught us, that He wants not the oblations of men, except it be for the sake of him who offers them; for at a time when He saw them negligent of justice and averse to the love of God and hoping to propitiate God by sacri- fices and other typical observances, Samuel told them, that God required not burnt-offerings ;” then he makes citations to this purpose from Psalm xl. and 1., Isaiah 1.11.16, 17,18; and then he thus proceeds, “ From all which it is manifest, that God demanded not of them sacrifices and burnt-offer- ings, but faith obedience and righteousness, in order to their salvation; and our Lord also taught them the same,
¢ Bishop Patrick On Christian Sacri- per universum orbem terrz offerre non fice, p. 24. edit. 9th. cessat.”—p. 92. ed. Lugd. 1633.]
ἃ De Fide ad Petrum Diac. cap. 19. f a. p. 9. Ap.
e [“ Sacrificium Panis et Viniin fide ® c. p. 4. Ap. et charitate Sancta Ecclesia Catholica
A SACRIFICE OF THANKSGIVING. 365
saying, ‘If ye had known what that meaneth, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the innocent.’” “Christ, bearing witness to the Prophets that they preached the truth, but charging them as culpably ignorant, and giving in charge to His own Disciples to offer to God the first-fruits of His creatures (not as if He wanted them, but that they might not be unfruitful or un- grateful,) takes that Bread, which is [part] of the creation, and gave thanks, saying, ‘This is My Body; and the Cup also, which is, according to our doctrine, part of the creation, and confessed it to be His Blood; and taught the new ob- lation of the New Testament, which the Church receiving from the Apostles offers throughout the world to that God which gives us food, 1 mean the first-fruits of their gifts, according to the New Testament.” Then he cites Malach. i, 10, 11; and then he adds, “ [the Prophet] manifestly signifying by these words, that the former people shall cease to offer to God; but that a Sacrifice shall be offered to Him in every place, and that a pure one too, and His Name is great among the Gentiles.” And at another place}, “ there- fore the oblation of the Church, which the Lord hath taught to be offered in the whole world, is esteemed by God a pure Sacrifice, and is accepted by Him; not that He wants a sacrifice from us; but because he who offers is himself honoured in what he offers, if his gifts be accepted. For our honour and affection toward a king is declared by our gifts :” and again‘, “It behoves us to make an oblation to God, and to be in all things found grateful to the Creator of the world, offering the first-fruits of the things which are His creatures. This oblation the only pure congregation, the Church, offers to the Creator, when she offers to Him His own creature with thanksgiving.”—“ We) offer to Him, not as if He were in- digent, but as paying the homage of thanks to His supreme Majesty—as therefore He, though He want not these things from us, yet will have them to be done by us, that we be not unfruitful; so the same Word gave a commandment to the people to make oblations to God, though He wanted them not—as He would have us also offer a gift at the Altar, frequently and without intermission; there is therefore an he. p. 5. Ap. Ef.) p: Be Apis Os jf, p. 5, 6. Ap. 1. 30.
SECT. Il.
CHAP.
366 THE EUCHARIST
Altar in Heaven, (for thither our prayers and oblations are directed,) and a Temple, as John in the Revelation says.” Now as this holy man does particularly guard against that vain conceit, which prevailed amongst the heathen and the grosser part of the Jews, that God had His wants supplied by the sacrifices made at the altar; and that He desired sacrifice for His own sake: so he again and again repeats the doctrine which I am now insisting on, that oblations are to be made to God for a recognition of His dominion over His creatures, and as a testimony of our gratitude; he expressly teaches, that Christ gave charge that Christians should make oblations, in His instituting the Sacrament of His Body and Blood; and informs us, that this oblation was in his time made by Christians throughout the world: and no man of his age better knew the practice of the universal Church; for as he had his education in the East, so he lived a great part of his time in the West, bemg Bishop of Lyons in Gaul. And what is most particularly remarkable, he was so far from asserting the doctrine which now prevails, that mere airy thanks and praise was the only sacrifice which was then called the Eucharist ; that he directly declares, that the oblations made by Christians were the first-fruits of God’s creatures, that very Bread and Wine, which the heretics denied and the Catholics affirmed to be the workmanship of God. This Sacrifice he affirms to be offered by the com- mand of Christ, when He instituted the Eucharist; and he asserts the Sacrifice of Christians to be such a sacrifice as the Jews ‘then ceased to offer.’ Now the Jews neither then did, nor now do cease to offer naked thanks and praise; but they cease from offering a Mincha or material Sacrifice. ‘This he declares to be the new oblation of the New Testament, which the Church had received from the Apostles, and which Christ had enjomed when He said | “This is My Body ;” and they who can believe, that after Ὶ all this Irenzeus meant no more than an oblation of words | and thoughts, must suppose that this holy Father, when he speaks of Christ’s saying, “ This is My Body,” “This is My Blood,” bade His Disciples eat and drink mere sounds and ideas; and that the Eucharistical Bread is no more than an act of our memory. And whereas he tells us, that “there is
A SACRIFICE OF THANKSGIVING. 367
an Altar in Heaven, to which our prayers and oblations are SECT.
directed ;” he not only clearly distinguishes prayers from we
oblations, but evidently alludes to the ancient practice,
which is not only legible in all the latter Liturgies, but in
that of Clement; I mean, in praying that the gifts which
had been offered to God as the mysterious Body and Blood
of Christ might be received up to the heavenly Altar: for
my reader will find such a prayer at the latter end of the
extracts from the several ancient Liturgies in my Appendix,
and I think I may dare say in all others that are now ex-
tant, except those that are perfectly modern ; only St. Mark’s
Liturgy puts up this prayer, by a prolepsis, before the words
of institution*. I dare presume to say, that the latest of
those Liturgies, which I have or shall mention, does not in
more strong and irresistible words, express a material sacri-
fice of praise, than some of these lines of Irenzus above pro-
duced; and they that will understand him of mere verbal
and mental oblations may as well take all that has been
said by Dr. Hickes and others in the same sense, which is
indeed an effectual method of putting an end to the con-
troversy. St. Justin Martyr’ speaks of “the Sacrifices of-
fered, that is, the Bread of Eucharist” or thanksgiving, and
“the Cup of Eucharist” or thanksgiving; and says™, that
“ Jesus has by tradition instructed us to offer the Cup in
remembrance of His Blood, giving thanks,” or celebrating
the Eucharist. There is indeed one passage in the writings A place of : : : Just. Mart.
of this holy man, which may at first sight seem to say more vindicated
than is consistent with what I have hitherto asserted. I will £2" ἐμ
exceptions give my reader the entire paragraph in English. He is con- Be ee futing Trypho the Jew; and in order to do this, he urges
the famous prophecy, in those words", “God beforehand Mal. i. 10, accepting all Sacrifices made to Him in every place through ae
His Name, which Jesus Christ has by tradition instructed
them to make, that is, in the Eucharist” or thanksgiving- Sacrifice of Bread and the Cup, “ testifies that they are ac- ceptable to Him ; but He rejects those made by you and those
priests of yours, saying, ‘I will accept none of your sacrifices
at your hands, for from the rising of the sun to the goimg
down thereof My Name is glorified among the Gentiles’ but
kb. p. 55. Ap. ΟΡ» 8. Ap, wid. p. 5. Ap: "e. p. 4. Ap.
CHAP. I.
368 THE EUCHARIST
ye have profaned It; and still loving disputes, ye say, that God accepts not sacrifice of the Israelites so-called that then dwelt at Jerusalem, but that He said He desires the prayers of those that were then in dispersion, being of the same stock of men; and that He calls their prayers sacrifices. Now that prayers and praises made by worthy men are the only per- fect sacrifices and acceptable to God, I myself also say; for Christians have been instructed to offer none other, even in the memorial of their food both dry and liquid, in which also the Passion of the Son of God is commemorated.” (N.B. I concern not myself with the dubious lection in these last words, viz. Υἱὸς Θεοῦ, or Υἱὸς Θεοῦ Θεὸς, because the present dispute does in no measure depend upon it.) As to the words themselves, they are very favourable to the doctrine of the Sacrifice in the main: but when He says, “Prayers and praise are the only perfect sacrifices accept- able to God, and that Christians offer no other in the Eu- charist,”’ it may be thought that he countenances the notion of our adversaries, who assert, that there is nothing to be offered there but vocal and mental devotions; therefore I answer,
1. That it is certainly true, that all sacrifices are either prayer or praise; they are all offered either as petitions for what we want or as acknowledgments for what we have received, as has been already observed; and it is further to be considered, that all sacrifices take their name from their use or end; so a sacrifice for sin is called ἁμαρτία, the trespass-offering πλημμέλεια, the peace-offering σωτήριον, the vow εὐχὴ, the sacrifice of thanksgiving αἴνεσις by the LXX, Εὐχαριστία by Aquila, the freewill-offering ὁμολογία or αἵρεσις; which are words signifying literally ‘sin,’ ‘ trespass,’ ‘ salva- tion,’ ‘ prayer,’ ‘ praise,’ ‘confession’ or ‘ choice ;? but did ever any man from thence conclude, that nothing was offered to God in these sacrifices but sin, trespass, salvation, prayer, praise, confession, and freedom of will or choice. The words indeed originally are such as do not necessarily and of them- selves signify anything more than the abstracted acts of sin, trespass, &c., but when applied to the several sorts of sacri- fices by the Hellenistic or Eucharistical writers, they do at the same time connote the animal or other material thing
A SACRIFICE GF THANKSGIVING. 369
offered upon these several occasions. It is said of our Saviour, 5ΕΟΎ. that He “was made sin for us;” and they who have looked —1* — no further than to the common signification of the word 7°" ‘3 ‘sin’ in this place, have from thence drawn some very
harsh as well as false conclusions. The answer, to them who
do thus abasively understand those words, is, that ἁμαρτία,
‘sin,’ in that text, signifies a ‘sacrifice for sin ;? and our Saviour might be made a sacrifice for sin, as He certainly
was, without becoming actually guilty by the imputation of
our sins: and the same answer will serve those, who, when
they hear of a sacrifice of prayer and praise, presently run
away with these words, taking them in their abstracted sense ;
and from thence conclude, that nothing is meant but a pure
act of the mind, or at most of the mouth; not considering,
that sin, prayer, and praise, when applied to sacrifice, import
not only or chiefly the actions commonly denoted by those
words, but that material thing, whatever it was, that was appointed for a sacrifice on this occasion. And I shall here-
after shew, that praise, or a sacrifice of praise, oftentimes in Scripture signifies the animal offered to express men’s grati-
tude to God; and they who will allow no sacrifice that is material in the Christian Church, because it is by Justin
called “ prayer and praise,” may with the same reason assert,
that there was no such material sacrifice offered in the temple
of Solomon.
2. The reader will observe, that this ancient writer does not say, that all prayers and praises are the most perfect sacrifices; but only such as are offered by “worthy men,” that is, Christians, and at the Eucharist: thus much is im- ported in those words, “These only we Christians have been by tradition instructed to offer, in the memorial of our food.” He does not give this reason for it, which would best fit our adversaries, viz. that it is an immaterial oblation ; but rather the contrary, viz. that the prayers and praises were offered in and by a material memorial. For what can make these devotions more excellent and prevalent than others, except it be the visible memorial, “that memorial in which the Passion of our Lord is commemorated,” as Justin speaks ? for I will thank no man for granting, what I have fully proved
JOHNSON. B b
CHAP. Il.
370 THE EUCHARIST in the margin®, that by the ‘memorial’ here must be meant the Eucharistical symbols.
3. From these two considerations it is very evident what Justin means, in granting that prayer and praise, offered by worthy men, are the most perfect sacrifice, and that Chris- tians offered no other in the Communion. For as all sacri- fices whatever are prayers or praises, in the sense above- mentioned ; so those offered by worthy men in the Eucharist are the only perfect and most acceptable. And if it be asked, what renders them so perfect and acceptable, it is evident, that this holy writer thought that the inward desires and acknowledgments of Christians were enforced and perfumed
by that memorial, which Christ commanded to be offered.
° St. Justin Martyr here says, that in the anamnesis of food, both dry and liquid, a commemoration was made of the Death of the Son of God. Now an anamnesis of food must either signify an acknowledgment of God’s goodness in providing meat and drink for man- kind, which is what our adversaries would have, or it must denote the Eucharistical Bread and Wine.
1. It does not mean an acknowledg- ment of God’s goodness in giving us common meat or drink: for in the anamnesis here mentioned, ἃ. comme- moration was made of Christ’s Death; but we cannot be said to commemorate Christ’s Death by making a recital of God’s blessing, in giving us common meat and drink. Men may in the same prayer thank God for meat and drink, and for Christ’s Death; but such a prayer, especially if used in the Sacra- ment, would never go by the name of a commemoration or remembrance of our food, but would take it’s name a majori, that is, from the Death of Christ there commemorated. Further, the καὶ is evidently emphatical, and therefore the words cannot otherwise be rendered than ‘ even in the memorial or remem- brance.’ Now the reader may judge whether it be most probable that this ancient writer would lay an emphasis on the least considerable part of the Eucharist-service, namely thanking God for common meat and drink, or on that which is the substance of the Eucharist, the Bread and Wine; and lastly, it is very observable that in the
most ancient Liturgy, the Clementine, there is no express mention of Bread and Wine in the long recital of God’s mercies to us, only in the words of ob- lation and consecration. I am sensible that Justin, when he is describing the celebration of the Eucharist, says*, “the President taking [the Bread and Cup] makes a long thanksgiving to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and Holy Ghost, for that God has vouchsafed them to us;’’ but by ‘them’ I think it more proper, both in grammar and good sense, to understand the Son and the Holy Spirit, than the Bread and Wine.
2. It therefore signifies the Eucha- ristical Bread and Wine, called a ‘ me- morial,’ in allusion to that part of the Mincha or meat offering, which was offered by fire to God, and called by this name in the Levitical Law, Lev. ii. 2. 9. 16. and elsewhere. There indeed the word μνημόσυνον is used by the LXX, which is perfectly of the same signification; but the very word ἀνάμ- νησις is used in relation to the shew- bread, a very remarkable type of the Eucharist, Lev. xxiv. 7, and certainly no name or title better befits the Eucha- ristical elements, which are taken out of the whole mass of oblations, to be in a particular manner offered and con- secrated to God; as Justin elsewhere assures us, the Bread and Wine of the Eucharist were, and in which a com- memoration was indeed made of the Death of the Son of God. The word anamnesis is also used Numb. x. 10.
* a. p. 2. Ap.
A SACRIFICE OF THANKSGIVING. 371
All sacrifices presented to God, according to His own direc- SECT. tions, are vocal; they “speak good things” to God in our ες behalf, as Abel’s did. The ancient sacrifices were only dumb significations of the thoughts and affections of them who offered them; but the Christian Church presents her Sacri- fice to God by words, as well as thoughts and actions; by words expressing at large the wishes, hopes, fears, and in- tentions of the Priests and people; and therefore may more properly be called prayers and praises, than any other material sacrifices of old instituted by God.
4, This must of necessity be Justin’s meaning in this place, if we will suppose that he discourses consistently ; for in other places of this very Dialogue with Trypho, he expressly asserts, that Bread and Wine were offered in the Eucharist; as I have shewed just before, and as an honest adversary con- fesses, (I mean Voigtus De Altarib.P). Nay, it is observable, that m that very place’, where Voigtus owns he speaks of offermg Bread and Wine, he says that Malachi foretold this in chap. i. 10, 11. Now Justin, in this very place, maintains against Trypho, that this prophecy of Malachi is to be under- stood of the Eucharist, and therefore certainly of a material oblation; unless you will make Justin contradict himself. To advance one step further still; it seems very probable, to say no more, that in the beginning of this very paragraph he asserts a thanksgiving-Sacrifice of Bread and Wine. Tf the translation which I have given of them just before be allowed of, it will not bear a dispute; and that translation I think to be fair and unexceptionable. The words are capable of another rendition, which also is as favourable to the doc- trine of the Sacrifice; thus, “ God accepting all Sacrifices (that is, in the Eucharist) of Bread and the Cup, made to Him in every place, through This Name which Jesus Christ has,” &c. Nay, Dr. Wise’s translation of these words is | fairly consistent with a material Sacrifice, viz. “God now receives everywhere from Christians, through the Name of Christ, those Sacrifices which He appointed to be made, that is, in the Eucharist of Bread and Wine ;” (1 only omit the Doctor’s ‘ blessing,’ which is not in the original,) for certainly “the Eucharist of Bread and Wine” denotes the Bread and
P p. 53. 1 σ᾽ 5. ὃ. Ap, Bb2
Heb. xii. 24.
CHAP. Il.
372 THE EUCHARIST
Wine itself; for “we call this food Eucharist,” says Justin’. The least that can be said is, that the words, however con- strued, do rather countenance the Eucharistical Sacrifice than otherwise; and it is most rational to take them in a sense, which Justin himself has expressly declared for in other parts of this work.
5. It especially deserves our remark, that Justin in these words is answering an evasive cavil of the Jew; for whereas Justin had alleged the prophecy of Malachi in behalf of the Christian Eucharist, the Jew replies upon him, that Malachi’s Mincha denoted the prayers put up by the Jews in their dispersion throughout the world. And all that
Justin says of prayer and praise is only by way of answer to _
a captious adversary; (therefore granting that Justin is to be understood in our adversaries’ sense, which I do not be- — heve; yet still] he argues ad hominem, allows “ prayer and praise offered by worthy men in the Eucharist” to be the © best sacrifice; but lets him know what makes them so, viz. — the memorial in and by which it is offered. Justin, when left to his own sentiments and expression, speaks in quite another manner; but when he was confuting a corrupt gloss of the Jews, he thought fit to talk in their way, and as it — were to beat them with their own weapon. And I cannot — but observe, that the present adversaries -of the Christian Sacrifice take up with the very same shifts that the unbe- — heving Jews did in Justin’s days; they would make us be- © lieve, that Malachi’s Mincha is only one of their spiritual sacrifices, consisting of nothing that is material. But they can never serve themselves or their cause by Justin’s answer; until they can shew us on their hypothesis, why prayer and praise, made in the memorial of Christ’s Death, are the only perfect and acceptable sacrifice ; for according to their prin- ciples, any prayer offered with faith must be as effectual as that which is offered in the Eucharist. ιν And lest it should seem harsh to an English reader not used to such ways of expression, by prayer and thanksgiving to understand a material sacrifice; he is to remember, what — is before shewed, that all material sacrifices were of old called by the name which denoted the end for which they r a. p. 2, 3. Ap. I. 12.
A SACRIFICE OF THANKSGIVING. 373
were offered; as the sacrifice for sin went by the name of SECT. ‘sin, the sacrifice of thanksgiving by the name of ‘ thanks- giving’ or ‘ praise ; and the oblation or sacrifice promised to God, in case a prayer was heard, was called εὐχὴ or προσ- εὐχὴ, ‘prayer; it is perpetually so termed by the LXX. A vow is a prayer with a material sacrifice annexed to it. We shall hereafter see, that the ancients called the material ob- lation in the Eucharist a vow or prayer, in the Latin votum ; and in the mean time I shall observe, that St. Clement of Rome speaks’ of the sacrifice of ‘ vows’ or ‘ prayers’ (εὐχῶν) as offered in the true Jerusalem, the Christian Church, to- gether with ‘the sacrifice for sm and transgression ;’ by which it is very evident, that it could not be thought un- natural in Justin, by prayer or vow to mean or connote a material oblation by the word εὐχὴ.
There is another instance of this sort in the Apostolical A place in Constitutions‘; for there it is said, that" “ prayer and praise any ares is the gift” meant by our Saviour. Now it is evident to See ee demonstration, that our Saviour intended a material gift, sidered. such a one as a man might “leave” behind him “ before the asc Altar, while he went to be reconciled to his brother; and the Constitutor was fully apprised of this, for no writer speaks more copiously of a material gift and Altar than he does; and therefore he too by evy7 must be most probably sup- posed to mean a ‘vow,’ or an oblation brought to enforce a prayer, and render it more prevalent: and then it will be easy to account for that expression, προσευχή cou οὐκ εἰσακ- ουσθήσεται; for a vow may be said to be heard or not heard as well as a mere prayer, to which the votary does not annex a material oblation. And thus David expresses himself, Ps. Ixi. 5. “Thou, O God, hast heard my vows.” The word 773, which perpetually signifies a material oblation joined with a wish or prayer, is here used in the original; and it is turned by the Greek, προσευχὴ, the very word used by the Constitutor.
Clemens Alexandrinus has indeed said what looks more A place in favourable to the cause of our adversaries than any thing ieecaet that I have met with in antiquity; the words follow, καὶ ea yap ἐστὶν ἡ θυσία τῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας λόγος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁγίων ψυ-
Εν. 1. Ap, 1, 14. a [* Δῶρον δὲ ἐστιν Θεῷ ἡ ἑκάστου
* Lib. ii. cap. 53. προσευχὴ καὶ εὐχαριστία."
374 THE EUCHARIST
Cc εἰ a P. χῶν ἀναθυμιώμενος, ἐκκαλυπτομένης ἅμα THs θυσίας, καὶ τῆς — διανοίας ἁπάσης τῷ Θεῷ". The first part of the sentence is capable of a double rendition, viz. “reason” or speech, “exhaled from holy souls, is the Sacrifice of the Church ;” or, “the Word, incensed or perfumed by holy souls, is the - Sacrifice of the Church.” The first rendition speaks an im- material Sacrifice ; the second may signify, that “ the Blood of Christ is the Sacrifice of the Church.” For this ancient writer, speaking of the Eucharist, says’, “the holy liquor of gladness allegorically represents the Logos or Word, shed for many for the remission of sins;” and this sounds ex- pressly for the Sacrifice, especially if we consider what _ follows, viz. “the Sacrifice, and the whole mind together — with it, being uncovered to God;” for this undoubtedly — alludes to the custom of laying the symbols in open view during the holy action. And therefore, if the connection did favour the doctrine of the Sacrifice so much, as the words themselves considered apart, I should not doubt to say that Clement was with us.
There is one consideration which is of itself an effectual answer to this and all other such like passages in antiquity, if there be any of the same sort; I mean, that by this way — of arguing we may prove from Scripture, that none of the cattle offered at Jerusalem were true sacrifices, but only im- properly and abasively so called. For those words*of Psalm li. “The sacrifices of God are a contrite spirit,” do as strongly and fully say, that a contrite spirit was the only sacrifice under the old Law, as Clement’s words do import, that prayer is the only sacrifice under the Gospel. David might as truly have said, that “prayer exhaled from holy souls was the sacrifice of God,” as that a contrite heart was so; and as by saying that a contrite heart was such a sacrifice, he did not, could not mean, that God required no other sacri- fice but that, while the Law of Moses was in full force; so neither would any rational man have drawn such a conclu- sion from his words, if he had said the same thing of prayer. — And the reason is plain, viz. that material sacrifice was en- — joined by the plain express words of the Law very often re-
᾿ pce peated ; and that David was so far from thinking that Law x [f.p. 7. Ap.]
y
ὉΠ ΠῚ ἡ ΔῊ:
A SACRIFICE OF THANKSGIVING. 379 repealed, that he himself did offer material sacrifice. And f SECT. the words used by David do not prove, that material sacri- = fices offered at Jerusalem were not true sacrifices, no more do the words of Clement prove, that he did not believe the Eucharistical Bread and Wine to be a Sacrifice strictly so called. I will suppose for once, that Clement had said a great deal more than ever our adversaries suppose him to have said; as for instance, that God loathes a Mincha, that His soul hateth the Eucharist-Sacrifice, and that he who offers any material oblation is as he who blesseth an idol. Our adversaries would indeed triumph, if any such words could be found in the ancients; yet such words as these would no more annul the Christian Sacrifice than those = 11.13; words did the Jewish. [This argument is further pursued Part II. ch. ii. sect. ii.]
{But I labour not so much to prove that Clem. Alexandr. was an asserter of the Sacrifice, as that the Church in his age, as well as the following, did hold and practise It. And to this, Clement himself is a direct witness, in his first book of Stromata. For he tells of heretics, ‘‘who used bread and water only in the oblation ;” and says, this was “ not according to the Canon of the Church.” And this I take to be a certain proof not only of a material Sacrifice of thanksgiving, both in the Church and among the heretics, but of the Church’s having a fixed rule or canon, whereby It was to be offered. If therefore Clement in his own judgment had been for an immaterial Sacrifice only; yet he gives full evidence against himself, as one that opposed the Church in this par- ticular’. |
I cannot but once more mention the words of St. Gregory Nazianzen*; “ Knowing that no man is worthy of the great God and Sacrifice and High-Priest, who has not first pre- sented himself a living holy sacrifice to God, and exhibited the rational acceptable Sacrifice, and offered to God the sacri- fice of praise, and the contrite spirit (which is the only sacri- fice which God demands from us), how should I dare offer to Him the external Sacrifice, the antitype of the great mys- teries, or be invested with the character or title of a Priest ?”
z See Preface to Part IL. of the Unbloody Sacrifice, p. vii. © a. p. 21. Ap.
CHAP. Il.
376 THE EUCHARIST
No words can be more expressive of a visible, real Sacrifice
———— offered by a Priest; and he plainly supposes, that all mental
sacrifices are only preparative or qualifications for offering this external Sacrifice ; which consideration does very much exalt the nature of the Eucharistical oblation. And yet after all he says expressly, that praise and a contrite heart are “the only sacrifice’ which God demands. These things may at first sight seem very inconsistent, but in reality the holy Father speaks very agreeably to himself and to the truth: for he does not say, that they are in themselves absolutely the only sacrifice, but that they are the only sacrifice which God demands from us; that is, which we can furnish out of our own stock, or offer of our own abilities. God demands the oblation of Christ’s Sacramental Body and Blood; but this is a Sacrifice, which He first et toties quoties gives us, before we can give it Him; even the material Bread and Wine are things, which God must give to us, before we can offer them to Him. His Word and Spirit must make the Eucharist the Body and Blood, before we can present them as such to Him; so long as we are rational, and creatures, and enjoy the faculty of speech, we have the sacrifice of praise and contrition, ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν, to offer to Him of our own, when and where we please. And therefore this is the only sacrifice God demands, as from ourselves, from within our own persons. And if we consider the, Church as a body of such men, it may be truly said, that the only oblation which they can advance as from themselves is that mental sacrifice now spoken of; the Body and Blood, and even the Bread and Wine, are things which may be said to be οὐκ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν, not from within us; and therefore this is in some measure ap- plicable to the words of Clemens Alexandrinus, just before cited: and these words of Gregory are a very plain demon- stration, that all the great things said by Cyril of Alexandria and others concerning the excellence of internal intellectual sacrifices are not at all inconsistent with the belief of a real and visible Sacrifice m the Eucharist; for the reader sees, that this Father in the very same paragraph does, in such words as will admit of no dispute, assert the material Sacrifice in the Eucharist, and makes all those internal sacrifices pre- viously necessary to the better offering of this; and yet at
A SACRIFICE OF THANKSGIVING. 377
the same time says, that praise and a contrite heart are the s ECT only sacrifice which God demands of us”.
If from single Fathers we turn our eyes to the ancient Of the long Liturgies, we shall find them filled with long recitals of God’s pee power, dominion, providence, and attributes, with Psalms of ag David, and other hymns from canonical and apocryphal gies. Scripture, or of a private and more late composure; and these were commonly introductory to the Trisagiwm, and in all Liturgies ended with those angelical words; soon after which the Priest proceeds to the institution, and then to the commemorative oblation, and then to the finishing con- secration. Now these particular and very large enumera- tions of God’s mercy and care over the whole race of man- kind, and especially the Church, were intended to be express declarations of the meaning and intentions of Christ Jesus’, and His Priest and people’s, instituting and celebrating the Eucharist ; that it was designed, in an especial manner, to be a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving for the creation and preservation and wise government of the world, and especially for our redemption by Christ Jesus; and that these recitals were very ample and very ancient is to be seen in Justin Martyr’s account of the Eucharist, which the reader has in the Appendix*. I know our adversaries are willing to have men believe, that these acknowledgments and decla- rations of God’s power and goodness were the very Sacrifice offered in the Communion; and that by these thanksgivings the Bread was sanctified, the Wine was blessed; but this is all mistake, as has been sufficiently shewed ; though it must be owned that by perpetually translating εὐχαριστεῖν in the history of institution by “giving of thanks,” and Justin Martyr and Irenzus’s ἄρτος εὐχαριστηθεὶς, “bread over which thanks has been given,” the generality of readers have taken occasion to draw such conclusions in their own
minds. But having already shewed how the Bread and
® T have produced sufficient proof sacrifice in the Eucharist, what are
from the Fathers for a material sacri- fice of praise in the Eucharist; and I have considered such particular sayings of the ancients, which are but three or four, where they seem to assert that the sacrifice consists of nothing but words and thoughts: and now, allowing them these authorities for an immaterial
they, if they are laid in the scale against so many and clear proofs for a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine? But in truth none of these are directly against us; the first and last are for us.—[ 1st Ed. ]
Clas pey2s ADs
CHAP. IL
Lev. v. 5.
378 THE EUCHARIST
Wine were consecrated, and that there was in the ancient Church a solemn oblation of them made to God, in com- memoration of Christ’s personal Sacrifice, I think it need- less now to labour for a proof of that which must, I suppose, be allowed to have been sufficiently proved already to all such as are impartial inquirers; and therefore I shall at present only further observe, that they, who would have the prefatory lauds and hymns to be the only Eucharistic Sacri- fices of Christians, argue as irrationally as if they should undertake to prove, that confession of sin was the only sin- offering or trespass-offering used in the temple or tabernacle of the Jews; because he that came thither to offer such a sacrifice must lay his hand on the beast which he brought to be sacrificed, and “so confess his sin :” but as this con- fession of sin was in truth no more than a declaring the oc- casion of his bringing the sacrifice; so I apprehend, that the ancient way of introducing the oblation in the Eucharist, with a very ample and special recital of God’s more singular blessings and favours, was no more than an express and most solemn profession of the Church’s intention, in the Sacrifice now to be offered, to do glory to God, to agnize His do- minion and other attributes, and to acknowledge all His mercies and favours, especially that which was the principal and the foundation of the rest, His sending Christ Jesus into the world to die for our sins. And that this was the first and primary design of the Eucharist they knew, not only from the nature of all Sacrifice, but because Christ had instituted this to be offered for a memorial of Him; and therefore, though it is certain, that εὐχαριστεῖν and εὐλογεῖν, Εὐχαριστία and Εὐλογία have the same signification in the history of institution and in several of the most ancient writers, and it was the Bread and Wine which were blessed or eucharis- tized ; yet these words were taken in so extensive a significa- tion, as that they were also believed to import blessing and praise offered to God, in and by this most sacred institution : and indeed the very offering the holy symbols to God was at the same time a recognition of God’s goodness and other attributes, and a means of procuring the Divine blessing to descend upon them; and therefore by the very same act and deed, they blessed God and blessed His creatures.
A SACRIFICE OF THANKSGIVING. 379
There is a passage in St. Clement of Rome’s first Epistle to the Corimthians, which deserves our particular considera- tion; the words are’, “‘The Sacrifice of praise shall glorify Me, and there is the way in which I will shew him My salvation.’ This is the way in which we shall find our salva- tion, that is, Jesus Christ, the High-Priest of our oblations®.” This holy Bishop had made a long citation from the fiftieth Psalm, in the end whereof are those words, which are at the beginning of those now produced by me. Now I suppose it will be easily granted, that by “the Sacrifice of praise” St. Clement meant the Eucharist; and indeed this is the only Sacrifice of praise, in which we can in any tolerable sense be said to “find the salvation of God.” In the former part of this Psalm, God had declared He would reject the bloody sacrifices of the Jews; but lest any one should from hence conclude, that no proper Sacrifice was to be offered by God’s new people under the Gospel, it is added, ver. 14, “ offer unto God thanksgiving, and pay thy vows unto the Most High ;” and here in the last verse, “the Sacrifice of praise shall glorify Me,” &c.; which St. Clement rightly judged to be a prediction of our unbloody oblation. The only question then is, whether by the sacrifice of praise we are here to understand a material sacrifice. Now as to this point, we have elsewhere seen, that this most primitive writer does plainly enough teach an oblation of Bread and Wine in the Eucharist ; see Sect. I. of this chapter; and our adversaries themselves own an offering made of Bread and Wine, though they cannot allow it to have been any essential part of the Eucharist in St. Clement’s time: there remains therefore nothing to be considered under this head, but only, whether it be more probable, that Clement here speaks of a material or an immaterial Sacrifice of praise ; and the only way I know to determine this question is, to examine how the expression was taken in all religious writings before and in his time; for it is not reasonable to suppose that St. Clement would
d N.B. St. Clement cites these Sacrifice ;’ and further the LXX read words according to the Greek trans- pw for the present py, and so we lation. Now the LXX read na} for “have “he. that orderetit at aright,’ in- the present 13} and we translating stead of ‘there;’ and the word which
Ξε ἃ we render ‘conversation,’ they render w stands Ξ é ’ from the Hebrew, as it now stands, literally ‘way.
have ‘he that offereth,’ instead of ‘the ofa pol. Ap.)
SECT. il.
St. Clemens
R. of a Sacrifice of praise.
CHAP.
The Scrip-
380 THE EUCHARIST
pretend to stamp a new sense upon it; or if he had, he would certainly have hinted so much to us. Now it is certain, the current sense of “a sacrifice of
turalnotion praise,” before and to St. Clement’s time, was an animal or
fice of praise.
Lev. iii.
Ley. vii. 15 118%
ver. 15.
Ley. xxii. 29, 30.
2 Chron. KxEK OL.
2 Chron. XxXxiii. 16.
(ch. xxxiii.
11.}
1 Mac.iv.56.
some other visible thing offered to God, as a testimony of gratitude. This it infallibly signifies wherever it is used in the Law of Moses; for a sacrifice of praise or thank- offering (which is the same thing; it is styled θυσία αἰνέσεως by the LXX in Leviticus, as well as Psalm 1.) was only one sort of peace-offering, and this peace-offerig was either a bullock or sheep or goat. But if it was intended for a sacrifice of praise or a thank-offering, the votary was directed to offer with it “cakes unleavened, mingled with oil,” &c. ‘ And the flesh of the sacrifice of peace-offering for thanksgiving shall be eaten the same day that it is offered ;” and again to the same purpose, “ When ye will offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving unto the Lord, offer it at your own will. On the same day it shall be eaten up.” So it signifies again in the story of Hezekiah, who bade the people “ bring sacrifices and thank- offerings into the house of the Lord; and the congregation brought sacrifices and thank-offerings, and as many as were of a free heart, burnt-offerings :” again, in the account we have of Manasseh’s conversion, it is said, “ He repaired the altar of the Lord, and sacrificed thereon peace-offerings and thank-offermgs.” [And the Prophet Jeremiah speaks of them that should “bring a sacrifice of praise imto the house of the Lord.” ] The word translated here in the two last places ‘thank-offerimgs’ is in the Hebrew ny )n, that is, ‘praises’ in the abstract; and yet I apprehend, that no rational man can doubt but that it signifies animal sacri- fices. The “sacrifice of thanksgiving with leaven” mentioned Amos iv. 5, must of necessity be material. We are told that at the feast of dedication the people “ offered burnt-offer- ings, and sacrificed the sacrifice of deliverance and praise or peace-offerings, and thank-offerimgs ;” there are but three other places that occur to me in the Old Testament, where this expression is used; in Psalm evi. 22; exvi. 17; and Jonah ii. 9. In these three places, vocal praises are added to the sacrifice of thanksgiving; but sure, when the Psalmist wishes that men would “ offer to God the sacrifice of thanks-
A SACRIFICE OF THANKSGIVING. 381
giving, and tell out His works with gladness ;” and when he
says of himself, “TI will offer the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and call upon the Name of the Lord;” he could not intend, by exhorting others to express their gratitude in words as well as by dumb sacrifices, and by.doing the same himself, that the verbal praise or devotion should annihilate the animals that were to be offered on such occasions. He only desires, that men would not content themselves with offering the carcase of a dead beast, but that they would with their tongues express their good dispositions toward God; and he resolves to do so himself; and the same must be said of Jonah, who, in the whale’s belly, promises not only to ‘ sacri- fice,” but to do it with a “voice of thanksgiving” and to “pay his vows.” The Psalmist and Jonah were born and bred Jews; and therefore, when they speak of sacrifice or the sacrifice of praise, they must in equity be understood to use those words in the sense, which God by His Law had given to them; in that sense, which the common use of the Jewish people had impressed upon them; unless there be some very obvious and cogent reason to the contrary: but in these places there is no such reason; nay, Jonah expressly adds ‘ vows ;’ and these were ever some material things offered to God, either in order to obtain some blessing, or to thank God for the receipt of it: and therefore I may conclude, that in the Old Testament a sacrifice of praise or thanksgiving perpetually signifies something that is material; for it is evident, that David at the offering sacrifice did use vocal devotions. When he “offered burnt-offerings and peace- offerings,” he “ called upon the Name of the Lord;” nay, “ he appointed certain of the Levites to record, and thank, and praise the Name of the Lord; and he left Zadok the Priest to offer burnt-offerings, and Heman and Jeduthun to give thanks unto the Name of the Lord,’ yet no man will in common sense conclude, that the material sacrifices were by this means annulled, or converted into hymns and psalms. “The Sacrifice of praise” is mentioned but once in the New Testament, viz. Heb. xiii. 15; and I can see no reason, why it may not there be taken in the same sense that did formerly belong to it; I do not mean for an animal sacrifice, but still for a material one; for such a Sacrifice as Christians offered
SECT. Il.
1 Chron. Ios
1 Chron. xvi. 4. 37. 39, 40, 41.
CHAP. Il.
Ps. Ixvi. 14,
382 THE EUCHARIST
in the Eucharist. Nor does the phrase here added, viz. the “fruit of our lips” (or “the offering of our lips,” for καρπὸν here is allowed to be put for cap7wua)—this I say does not impugn the notion of a material sacrifice of praise, at least not such a one as we offer in the Eucharist; for this is really an oblation of the lips, rather than of the hands; it is pre- sented to God principally by prayer and praise, and is there- fore ‘an offering of the lips, making confession to God’s name.’ It is supposed, that the Apostle took this phrase from Hosea xiv. 2, where it is rendered by us, according to the present Hebrew copies, “the calves of our lips.” But neither does this phrase necessarily import an immaterial sacrifice. The Prophet directs the people to address them- selves to God, and say, “Take away all iniquity, and receive us graciously, so will we render the calves of our lips.” It seems to me most probable, that as the words are a form of prayer, which the Prophet drew up for the ten tribes to be used under their captivity ; so the import of them is, that if God would restore them to their native country and to the public worship in the temple, they would upon their restora- tion render to God those calves, or other sacrifices, which their lips had promised or vowed under their captivity. So that by ‘the calves of their lips’.we can more probably understand nothing than those material sacrifices, which the captive Israelites had vowed on condition that God would give them the free enjoyment of their country and religion. And I shall hereafter have occasion to shew, that the oblations made by lay-Christians were sometimes called vows, and that too very properly ; so that, in a word, I can see no shadow of reason, why a sacrifice of praise must have quite another signification in the writings of St. Paul and his fellow-labourer St. Clement, from what it has through the Old Testament. Nor can I see any other cause, why men when they hear mention of a sacrifice of praise should presently form an idea of ome invisible and immaterial oblation, than that which Quakers have, when they hear of “the Spirit” and “the Body of Christ,” pre- sently to apply it to their “light within ; or than others have, when they hear of “ praying by the Spirit,” to apply that phrase to praying without premeditation ; or when they hear
A SACRIFICE OF THANKSGIVING. 385
the word ‘presbytery,’ to have in their minds a notion of ten or a dozen grave men, perfectly of the same order and au- thority, and that have the gift of speaking extempore both to God and men: and the reason is only this, that they have many years used to link together these words and these ideas, and they are so much under the power of prejudice, that they know not how to turn their thoughts mto a new track. If it be said, that Christ came to instruct us ‘to worship God in spirit ;” and that therefore the phrases of the Old Testament, when used in the New, must be taken in a spiritual sense; all this I readily own. But then by ‘spirit? I do not think we are to understand worshipping God without any thing that is material. I can see no reason why our Sacrifices must be more immaterial than our Sacra- ments. We worship God in spirit, when our minds go along with our outward actions and words, and when we see and acknowledge those promises to be fulfilled by the Gospel, which were veiled under types and enigmatical predictions in the Law and the Prophets. Men may pretend, and may by mistake believe, that, while they contend for an imma- terial sacrifice in opposition to a material one, they do it out of true judgment and a well-informed zeal, which teaches them to prefer the inward affections and dispositions of the heart before every thing that is external: and it is upon this very pretence that a very great number of our people despise or neglect Sacraments; and others cry out against them as the very dust of the serpent. But sure, by asserting a material Sacrifice, so tremendous a Sacrifice as that I have been de- scribing, we do not at all lessen the value of any internal grace or the necessity of a pious life and conversation ; nay, we believe, that, by endeavouring to raise the dignity of Sa- craments to the primitive Apostolical standard, we take the most effectual course to promote solid piety and practical Christianity. There is no argument like that of experience ; piety never thrived so mightily in the Church of Christ as during those times, when that doctrine of the Eucharist, which I now plead for, did universally prevail: and on the contrary, we justly complain of the great degeneracy of the present generation of men, who call themselves Christians ; and certainly one radical cause of this degeneracy is the very
SECT. Il.
CHAP. Il.
The second end of the Eucharist- ical Sacri- fice is pro- pitiation and expi- ation.
384 THE EUCHARIST
low opinion, which men have entertained of the Sacraments, and particularly of the Eucharist ; which was of old esteemed, and certainly was, while duly practised, the most prevalent and efficacious method of addressing our services to God, and of drawing down blessings from Him upon ourselves. A man of the present age may please himself with an opinion, that if he do but “praise the Name of God” and “ magnify it with thanksgiving” proceeding from his tongue and heart, he offers a better sacrifice to God than if he sacrificed “a bullock which hath horns and hoofs ;” and he may conceit that the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is no better than that of a dead animal; nay, our adversaries have en- deavoured to represent the latter as more valuable than the former: but certainly the royal Psalmist would never have drawn any comparison between a sacrifice that men can com- pose and offer by their own inherent powers and faculties, and a Sacrifice that was contrived by the Son of God Him- self, and which He invigorates with perpetual streams of Divine grace, and has made the standing ordinance, whereby His merits are to be solicited, conveyed, and applied to the souls of men. This brings me to shew,
2. That the other end of this Sacrifice is, to procure Divine blessings and especially pardon of sin. In the first respect it is propitiatory, in the second expiatory, by virtue of its principal, the grand Sacrifice. I join both of them together to render the citation of the authorities less tedious to my reader and myself; for the proofs of both these particulars are intermixed with each other, as the reader will perceive by a perusal of them. I begin with the words of St. Chry- sostom!; “When the whole people and the body of the Clergy stand with hands stretched out, and the tremendous mystery is placed in open view, how can we do otherwise than prevail with God?” and he takes it very ill of some in his days, who thought, that “ when the Sacrifice was in [the Priests’ ] hands, and all things being ordered in a decorous manner lay in open view,”’ yet that the commemoration of Martyrs was “mere matter of form; then,” as he adds, “ other things are matters of form, the oblations made for the Priests and the body of the people; but God forbid, all
£ 0. p. 42. Ap. © Cop. ἘΠ. Δι
HOW PROPITIATORY AND EXPIATORY. 385
these things are done with faith.” St. Augustine wonders?, “why in this one Sacrifice for sin the people should be in- yited to drink the blood ;” whereas they were forbidden it in all the sacrifices under the Law. He calls iti “the only Sacrifice of our salvation :” for he supposes it the same, which Christ offered in the original Eucharist. Nay, he says in com- mendation of his mother Monica‘, “She desired daily to be remembered at the Altar, from whence she knew That Victim was dispensed, by Which the hand-writing against us is blotted out.” “Now,” says St. Ambrose], “ Christ is offered, He offers Himself as a Priest to remit our sins, here in effigy, there in verity, where He intercedes as an advocate to His Father for us.” Ephrem Syrus affirms, that™ “when the tremen- dous mysteries are offered, and the Priest makes a prayer for all, (meaning between the consecration and distribution,) then those souls, which make their approaches, receive a purification from all their sins through those tremendous mysteries.” Cyril of Jerusalem tells us", “when the spiri- tual victim, the unbloody Sacrifice is finished, then we sup- plicate God over this Sacrifice of propitiation or expiation, (ἱλασμοῦ,) for the common peace of the Churches, for the well-ordering of the world, for kings, for soldiers, &c.—and to say all at once, for all that want our assistance ;” and again®, “ We offer Christ slain for our sins, propitiating God for them [the people,| and for ourselves.” Eusebius, speak- ing of some Bishops, who were not sufficient masters of elo- quence to harangue the emperor and his court at a public congress, says’, that “‘they propitiated the Deity with the unbloody victims, the mystic Sacrifices, for the common peace, for the Church of God, for the emperor himself, offering supplicatory prayers for the royal issue;” and at another place‘, “ We offer the loaves of shew-bread, and the blood of sprinkling, of the Lamb of God, Which taketh away the sins of the world, Which expiates our souls, when we renew the salutary memorial.” St. Cyprian’ expresses his indignation against some that had lapsed in time of per-
bh f, p. 31. Ap. n f. p. 19. Ap. 1 N. p. 36. Ap. Sg. 19. Ap. K a. p. 31. Ap. Pc. p. 15. Ap. 1m. p. 27. Ap. ike pela ape m a, p. 25. Ap. age CE oe oF
JOHNSON. ce
SECT. IL.
CHAP. ME
386 PHE EUCHARIST
secution, for that they attempted surreptitiously to take the Sacrament, “ before their sins were expiated, before they had made public confession of their crimes, before their con- science was cleansed by the Sacrifice and hands of the Priest ;’ i. 6. before the Eucharist had been offered for them in particular, and before the Priest had absolved them by imposition of hands, as the practice was in that age. Origen is very clear in this points. “If these things,” says he, “are referred to the great mystery, we shall find that that memorial has the effect of the grand propitiation. If you turn your thoughts to that Bread which comes down from heaven and gives life to this world, to that Shew-bread which God hath set in open view, as being propitiatory by faith in His Blood, of which our Lord saith, ‘ offer this for a memorial of Me; you will find this is the only memorial which renders God propitious to men.” And when St. Cle- ment of Rome says‘, that “the continual Sacrifice, the vow, the offering for sin and transgression, are offered only in Jerusalem,” that is, in the Christian Church, as St. Cyril of Alexandria very justly explains it, he gives a very illustrious testimony to this truth.
The Liturgies are very full of proof to this purpose; the Gregorian prays" for “an acceptance of the gifts, and of those who offer them, and for whom they are offered, and of all who belong to them; for the redemption of their souls,” &e. That of St. Peter, that* “God would bless the Saeri- fice, and for the sake of it accept them who offer it ;” and’, that “God would bless the gifts which we offer for the whole Catholic Church.” In St. Chrysostom’s Liturgy the Priest begs, “that he may be sufficient to offer gifts and Sacrifices for his own sins and the errors of the people;” there are words to the same effect in the Liturgy of St. Basil’, and in- the Liturgy of St. James”, which I shall not-repeat, but refer my reader to them. But the Clementine Liturgy best de-— serves our notice; and m that the Bishop beseeches God* “to look favourably on the gifts, and to send down His Holy
s b. p. 10. Ap. * b: ps br. Ap ΡΣ ΤΆ Ὁ Ὁ, p. 56. Ap.
« b. p. 59. Ap. be. d.p. 54, 55. Ap * a. p. 58. Ap. cc. p. 03. Ap. 1. 31 Σ b. p. 58. Ap.
HOW PROPITIATORY AND EXPIATORY. 387
pirit on them; that they who partake of them may be con- rmed in godliness, obtain remission of sins,” &c. and then oes on “to pray or offer” (these words are indifferently ed) for all sorts and degrees of men, and for blessings of 1 kinds. But there is one thing very observable on this }ead, and that is; whereas the Liturgy of Clement has these tercessions or propitiations for all estates of men, and for 11 Divine blessings, immediately after the oblation and con- cration only, the other Liturgies have them interspersed hroughout: which seems plainly to be a proof, that the ost primitive Church thought it the only proper time to revail with God for the greatest favours and graces, when e Sacrifice was just now consummated and lay in open lew; and that therefore the higher you go in Church an- igquity, the more clear and agreeable were the notions which evailed concerning the propitiatory and expiatory nature Ὁ the Eucharist. It seems plain, that the Liturgies used xy SS. Chrysostom and Cyril of Jerusalem observed the same nethod, that is still extant in the Liturgy of St. Clement ; or we have, in the citations just before, seen them expressing nd justifying these propitiatory devotions, as made when the acrifice was consecrated.
There is one proof of the propitiatory nature of the Eu- harist, according to the sentiments of the ancient Church, hich will be thought but only too great; and that is the evotions used in the Liturgies, and so often spoken of by the athers, in behalf of deceased souls. There is, I suppose, no iturgy without them, and the Fathers frequently speak of em. St. Chrysostom mentions it*, as an institution of the postles. St. Augustine asserts*, that such prayers are bene- cial to those who have led lives so moderately good as to eserve them. Cyril of Jerusalem mentions‘ a prayer for ose’ who are gone to sleep before us. And St. Cyprian® entions the denial of these prayers, as a censure passed pon some men by his predecessors. Tertullian speaks of is practice as prevailing in his time‘; and the Constitu-
Ε Ὁ. p. 42. Ap. intercessions God may receive our
© x. p. 35. Ap. supplication.” | sp. 19. Ap. 1. 10. nj, p. 12. Ap. & [ Rather, a commemoration of the ἔς, ἃ, p. 6. Ap.
eparted, “that by their prayers and δον
SECT. Il.
CHAP. i το devotion for the souls of those that die in the faith. I shall
388 THE EUCHARIST
tions* do require Priests and people to use these sorts of
say nothing of this doctrine: but
That the ancients did not use these prayers, as if they thought of a purgatory ; it is certain this last is a modern invention, in comparison of the oblations and prayers of. fered by the primitive Church in behalf of their decease brethren.
They did not allow prayers to be made for such as the thought ill men, either as to principles or practice. They — prayed for the Virgin Mary, Apostles, Patriarchs, &c. and such as they believed to be like them.
They seem to have learned this practice from the Syna- gogue; for it is probable the Jews in and before our Sa- viour’s time did use it.
Dr. Whitby has fully proved in his annotation on 2 Tim. iv. 4, that the primitive Fathers, and even the Apostles, did not believe, that the souls of the faithful are admitted into heaven before the day of judgment. It was, I suppose, from hence concluded, that they were in the interim in a state of expectance, and were capable of an increase of light and refreshment.
Since praying for them while in this state was no where forbidden, they judged it therefore lawful ; and if it were law- | ful, no more need be said ; nature will as the rest.
The only use I make af it is to prove, that the ancients believed the Eucharist a propitiatory Sacrifice; and therefore put up these prayers for their deceased friends, in the most ; solemn part of the Eucharistic office, after the symbols had received the finishing consecration: for as no desires are more sincere or affectionate than those which we conceive in be- half of our deceased friends; so certainly the ancients ad- dressed these desires to God in such a manner, as they thought most prevalent, that is, by virtue of the Eucharis-_ tical Sacrifice then lying in open view. |
Upon whatever grounds it was, that the primitive Church received this custom of praying for the dead, which I am not now at leisure to consider so much at large as it deserves; it is certain, they had this notion of the propitiatory nature
kd. p. 47. Ap.; δ. p. 53. Ap. ]. 47.
HOW PROPITIATORY AND EXPIATORY. 389
of the Eucharist from the Scripture, and even from Christ srcT. Jesus Himself. For if the Eucharistical Bread and Wine ΡῈ. ὦ Christ’s Body and Blood, given and poured out for us; if
our Saviour did in the institution give the one, and shed the
other for us; and if He commanded His Apostles and their successors for ever after, to do the same as a memorial of
Him ; then I think it is already sufficiently proved, that the Eucharist is a propitiatory Sacrifice. And further, I con- Heb. xiii. ceive the Apostle speaks of the Eucharist, both as a sacrifice the Gans for sin and a sacrifice of praise, in the thirteenth chapter of {27 Sa the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Apostle observes, ver. 9, expe that “it is good, the heart be established with grace, not with ristical. [such] meats,” [as peace-offerings, unleavened bread, and the
like] “ which have not profited them who have been occupied therein.” Now I must confess by “ grace,” as opposed to those
meats which the Law prescribed, I think it most reasonable to understand the Eucharistical Bread and Wine. I have for-
merly observed, that Clemens Alexandrinus and others sup-
pose the Sacrament to be called the Eucharist! from the
Divine grace communicated to it and byit. And it is pretty
plain, that even the lay-oblations pass by this name™. Much 2Cor.viii, more credible is it, that the offered and consecrated symbols ca should have this honourable title given to them. I apprehend, therefore, that in these words the Apostle exhorts Christians
not to trouble themselves, if the infidel Jews drove them from
their temple and sacrifices; and advises them to keep close
to the Christian Church, where they might be sure to “ eat
the Bread of God,” and to receive such meats as would in-
deed “establish the heart.” In the tenth verse the Apo-
stle advises the Hebrew Christians to comfort themselves with
this, that they had in the Church ‘an Altar,’ of the Sacrifice
offered whereon the Jews remaining in their infidelity “had
no power to eat,” no, though they “served the tabernacle or temple” in the quality of Priests or Levites. The reason
given by the Apostle, why neither the Priests nor people of
the Jews had any right to eat any thing that came from the Christian Altar, was, that the Sacrifice there offered was not
only a sacrifice for sin, such as was offered in behalf of any subordinate magistrate or common person; the main of which
1 q ab. εὖ et χάρις. m™ See Propitiatory Oblation, p. 22,
CHAP.
Lev. iv. 3
ver. 5. 16. ver. 13. 21.
Lev. xvii. 11.
990 THE EUCHARIST
was to be eaten by the Priests: but such a sin-offering, as was enjoined for the Priests and the whole congregation, when they had been guilty of any actual transgression against the Law of God; such an offering for sin, as that “the blood was carried into the sanctuary” and “the body burnt with- out the camp,” and that therefore it was such a Sacrifice, as the Jewish Priests were not to taste of, much less the people, according to the prescripts of their own Law. They who by the “ Altar” would understand the Cross, and by “ eating” the receiving Christ by faith; as they give us a very frigid and jejune explication of the Apostle’s words, and suppose that for which they have no grounds in Scripture, viz. that eating of Christ Jesus denotes bare faith in Him ; so they can never reconcile this notion to the Apostle’s reasonings and asser-— tions: for if by eating of the Sacrifice the Apostle meant only believing the virtue and power of it; then it cannot be said, that the Priest and people did not in this sense eat of the body of those sacrifices, whose blood was carried into the sanctuary. For if they believed their own Law, they must believe that “the blood made atonement for the soul ; and if by believing in Christ we eat Him, then they, in believing the efficacy of their sacrifices, might, in the same manner and by the same figure, be said to eat their sacrifices. There- fore I take the words of the Apostle in their most obvious and natural sense. I doubt not but by the “ Altar’ he meant what all Christian writers did for many hundred ‘years next after him; and by “eating of” or from “it,” I understand an oral participation of the Sacrifice offered upon it. And I conceive, I have given sufficient reason for taking the text in this sense. And they that will run off from the literal meaning of any text, purely to indulge their fancies, or to serve a present turn, cannot be said to consult the honour of those holy records.
[ Nay, they do in effect contradict a certain truth contained in these sacred books. For there we are assured that Jesus Christ was sent first to the Jews. But nowif they who served the tabernacle had no right to eat from the Christian Altar, and if eating from the Christian Altar signify only believing, then it must follow that they who served the tabernacle had no right to believe in Christ; whereas in truth they had a
HOW PROPITIATORY AND EXPIATORY. 391
right in this respect prior to the Gentiles. If it be said, while they served the tabernacle they had no right to believe, I answer yes. All infidels have not only a right, but are under a command to believe in Christ. |
I conceive, that by “ the Sacrifice of praise,” ver. 15, I have already proved, that St. Clement, who was the Apostle’s fel- low-labourer, meant the Eucharist ; and it is probable that he learned this language from St. Paul, by whom he was instructed in the Christian faith, and in the doctrine and method of celebrating the holy Eucharist. Several Protes- tants by “‘the Sacrifice of praise’ do understand the alms offered at the Eucharist; and these are certainly material sacrifices; unless you will suppose, the Apostle intended such alms, as St. James speaks of, “be ye clothed, and be filled: for such alms best fit the notions of those, who will allow Christians no Sacrifice but what is spiritual; and be- lieve nothing to be spiritual but what is immaterial. “He that giveth alms sacrificeth praise,” saith Ecclesiasticus, chap. xxxy. ver. 2, that is, he offereth a material sacrifice of thanksgiving; he does a thing as acceptable to God, as if he presented Him with some brute animal to express his gratitude; and much more may they be said to do this, who offer to God the most valuable oblation that was ever offered by mere men, I mean, the Eucharistical Body and Blood of Christ. But if our adversaries are for confining these words of St. Paul merely to the lay-oblation; yet I hope, when he speaks of “ communicating”’ in the next verse, this may be ex- tended to the whole office of the Eucharist ; I am sure it is so now among us; and 1 will add, that it was so in the primitive Church. For in the canons of one council, and that I think the very earliest, whose constitutions are come down to us, (I mean that of Eliberis, held A.D. 305,) the holy Sacrament is called ‘ the Communion’ fifty times, or very near it. And if the canons of this council be genuine, this shews that ‘Communion’ and ‘communicate’ were words used in the same sense in that age that they are in this; and that this was then a very familiar way of speaking. And the Apostle, in the next words, declares what he had been speak- ing of to be sacrifices, and “ such sacrifices as God is well pleased with.” We are sure the alms were material; and
SECT. Il.
CHAP. Il.
The Sacri- fice of the Eucharist no diminu- tion of the satisfaction made on the cross.
Ley. xvii. iF
392 THE EUCHARIST
why the other particulars should be deemed to be immaterial, we see not.
And thus having finished my proof of the Eucharistical and propitiatory nature of the Christian Sacrifice; I think it seasonable, before I close this chapter, to consider such exceptions as have | been] or may be made against it, as here asserted to be propitiatory and expiatory. I have already in the first Section answered or prevented those objections, which may be raised against it, as if it were a repetition of the grand Sacrifice; and have shewed, that it is not the
repetition of the satisfaction made on the cross, but only of
that oblation made by Christ in instituting this memorial. Yet still it may be thought by some, that im pretending to offer an expiatory Sacrifice, after the all-sufficient and most satisfactory Sacrifice offered by Christ, we lessen and depress the value and merits of It.
But I must confess, I do not perceive any force in this argument against the expiatory nature of the Eucharist any more than against the expiatory nature of the sacrifices offered by God’s direction before or under the Law. If God had seen it necessary, in order to preserve the honour and esteem due to the grand Sacrifice, that no other oblation offered to Him should be looked upon to be an expiation for sin; He would surely never have expressly told the Israelites, that “by the blood of their sacrifices an atonement was made.” He would rather have told them, that instead of saerificing they ought to believe in that grand Sacrifice, which was hereafter to come; which was the only method, upon the supposition of our adversaries, to have secured the value and esteem, which men ought to have for the personal Sacrifice of Christ Jesus. And then to suppose that the faint shady types and figures of the Law should be of greater force and efficacy than what the ancients thought to be a completive Sacrifice under the Gospel, than a Sacrifice instituted with the mouth and hands of the Son of God Himself, is a doctrine very hard to be digested by those that have a hearty esteem for the Gospel Sacraments and the Founder of them. And I cannot but say on this occasion, that some great men, who have asserted the Eucharist to be a real Sacrifice but not propitiatory, have in this respect been more cautious than argute. For if
β
|
:
HOW PROPITIATORY AND EXPIATORY. 393
dthere ever was a sacrifice, truly so called, that was not propiti- SECT. atory, it is what I am yet to learn. And I cannot but think, ἘΞ that I have sufficiently consulted the honour of the grand Sacrifice, by asserting and proving that the Eucharist was never intended for the making a new satisfaction for the sins of men; that this cannot, in the nature of things, be done again; “for Christ, being once dead, dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over Him.” We do no more in the Eucharist than what we firmly believe Christ hath com- manded to be done over and again until His second coming. We shew forth His death, only as He Himself did, when He previously gave His Body and Blood to God before His crucifixion, And we believe Christ Jesus Himself to be a more proper judge in what degree and by what means we are to secure the honour of His personal Sacrifice, than the whole rational world beside.
It may further be said, that since so perfect a satisfaction has been made by the one oblation of Christ; all further propitiations and expiations must, to say the least, be per- fectly unnecessary. To which I humbly reply, that
If by calling the Eucharist a propitiatory or expiatory Sa- The Sacri- crifice, I am understood to mean, that we add to the merits 2°01 ie
Eucharist of our Saviour’s death and sufferings; I must disclaim and 38 &*P*
protest against all such thoughts and notions. It is the unmeces-- natural Blood of Christ, Which is the inexhaustible treasure ec) of all those blessings that can be derived to us by the Eucha- rist, or by any other means. Whatever power or efficacy is ascribed to the Eucharist, flows wholly from the original Sacrifice. And yet we cannot think the Eucharistical Sacri- fice needless ; because the personal Sacrifice of Christ did not and could not absolutely and actually discharge all Chris- tians from the guilt of their sins. For there were many, I may say, infinitely many sins, that were not yet committed, when Christ was crucified; and I suppose none but the rankest Antinomians will say, that sins are forgiven before they are committed. Nay, I conceive, I am like to have no adversaries, but such as will readily own, that sin cannot be forgiven, until they who are guilty of it have sincerely re- pented and used the proper methods of obtaining pardon; and that therefore, if Christ Jesus have instituted any Sacri-
394 THE EUCHARIST
CHAP. fice as necessary to be offered in order to obtain this pardon, |
———— we are never to presume that we have gained the end, unti) we have used the means. In a word, all Christians, with whom I am now arguing, will grant, that Christ purchased forgiveness and other blessmgs by His death, conditionally only; and that until we have complied with these conditions, we have no reason to expect these blessings ;
Two things In order therefore to procure pardon of sin or any other
ae En mercy, which we hope to receive by the shedding of His
ing the - » -
ee Blood, these two things are necessary ;
peed 1. That we apply ourselves to God in a proper manner; e expl- ᾿
ati of | and if He have directed us in what manner to do it, we are our sim to seek for no other. God decreed from the beginning, that the death of Christ should be the means of all that pardon and other graces and favours, which He intended for His Church and people. Yet this did not hinder Him from instituting sacrifices, whereby men should apply themselves to Him, in order to have these graces and favours imparted to them ; and though He hath now abolished all other sacri- fices, yet I have shewed, that He has enjoined a new one in their stead. And since the sins of Christians are more ex- ceeding sinful than those of other men, as being committed against a more clear and full light than was ever enjoyed by others ; therefore it seems reasonable, that they should make this application to God for pardon, by more valuable and powerful sacrifices, than others did or could. And since the mercies we expect are more great and weighty than any men, before Christ’s coming, had any reason with confidence to ask of God; therefore the Sacrifice offered by us ought in reason to be of greater price and more full of persuasion than theirs were ; and Christ hath accordingly furnished us with such a Sacrifice, even that of His spiritual Body and Blood. The Rom. iii. 25. Apostle excellently well teaches us this truth, when he tells us, that “God hath set forth Christ to be a propitiation,” or rather a “ propitiatory ;” that is, Christ is to us, what the mercy-seat was to the Jews. Now the Jews were never the better for the mercy-seat, if they did not apply themselves to it in the method, which God by His Law had prescribed. And the method of making approach to the mercy-seat was by offering sacrifice, and sprinkling the blood thereof upon
HOW PROPITIATORY AND EXPIATORY. 395
the vail, which was drawn before this throne, where the Divine Majesty did in so peculiar a manner reside; and our Saviour has directed us where and how we are to make our addresses to Him, as our mercy-seat ; and that is by offering the memorial, which He Himself hath appointed. And it is strange, that Christians can think of making application to their mercy-seat in a less solemn manner, than the Jews did to theirs. The Apostle further tells us, that Christ is our pro- pitiatory, “through faith in His blood ;” because faith is not only necessary to qualify us for pardon, but even for the application that is to be made for this purpose. But faith of itself can no more pardon a Christian that is baptized, than a catechumen that is not. We are justified by faith ; becatse we are by faith led to Baptism and to the Eucha- ristical Sacrifice. But when we live in an age, wherein men are made to believe, that faith pardons, justifies, and saves men ; it cannot be wondered, that men slight and disparage all other means: but God be thanked, that neither the Scrip- tures, nor the Church, teach us this doctrine; but it is a false conclusion that men draw from the Scriptures, to save them- selves the pains of using any other means. It appears then very evidently, that, notwithstanding Christ’s death, yet par- don and other evangelical mercies cannot be obtained with- out particular application made to God; that the application made by Christians ought to be rather in a more solemn and prevalent manner than was ever used by others; that never any people did make application for pardon and other great favours, after they were once in covenant with God, but by Sacrifice. It therefore seems just and reasonable, that we should do it in the same manner; and it is very evident, that the Christians of the first and purest ages did thus make their application. It ought further to be considered, that nothing within, no external action performed by any person in behalf of himself, can properly be said to be pro- pitiatory or expiatory; the assiduous sincere performance of any duty undoubtedly inclines God to be merciful and pro- pitious to us; but no man ought to depend on any action of his own, for the procuring an actual application of pardon to himself. It is agreed on all hands, that the merit and satisfaction, whereby our sins are forgiven, flow purely from
SECT.
Ley.iv.6.17.
CHAP. Il.
Ex. xxXxii. 30, &c.
Sam. xii.13.
396 THE EUCHARIST
the grand Sacrifice; but I am now speaking of the actual application of these merits and this satisfaction, which was the end for which all sacrifices under the Law and the Eu- charistical Sacrifice under the Gospel were appointed by God. And it is I suppose very evident, that none was ever allowed to make expiation for himself, by any thing that he was capable of doing as a private person. The High-Priest, when he had sinned, was indeed to expiate his own fact; but it was by virtue of an external sacrifice, instituted by God for this purpose; not by any prayer, or faith, or internal act of religion. He was to apply himself to God “by the blood of other” creatures, to shew, that nothing which pro- ceeds αὖ intus, from within ourselves, can either make satis- faction for our sins, or make application of the satisfaction made by another. Moses indeed seems to have made atone- ment for Aaron and the people by prayer, but not for him- self, for he was innocent; but this too seems to have been done, before the tabernacle and altar were erected and the priesthood instituted, and consequently before there was any solemn sacrifice appointed for this purpose; and it was in a case too, where the intended High-Priest Aaron had polluted himself by idolatry, and so had been under an in- capacity for executing his office, if he had received his in- auguration; and this therefore can never prove, that any particular person, or any body of men, can effectually apply themselves to God for pardon by virtue of their own prayers, or other good deeds, or even by faith in Christ, without using that method of application which God hath ordained. Far be it from me to say or think, that God hath tied His own hands, so as that He will accept of no other manner of address, when He sees a just reason for it; but what I say is, that neither prayer nor any mere internal act of the mind was ever appointed by God, either to make satisfaction or expiation, or to apply it to our souls; though we ought in reason or charity to believe, that in defect of the outward means God accepts what we are capable of doing. David indeed had no occasion to make use of sacrifice; for he had his pardon notified to him by an express revelation. And though the son of Sirach says, that “to depart from evil is a propitiation ; yet in the next words he advises the |
HOW PROPITIATORY AND EXPIATORY. 397
reader “not to appear before the Lord empty,” that is, with- eae T. out a sacrifice ; by which he lets us know, that when he calls re- τοις pentance “propitiation,” he means, it is a most excellent quali- xxxv. 3, 4 fication to prepare us to appear before God, in order to have our sins expiated. I conclude, that neither prayer, nor faith, nor any other act or deed of ours, can be expiatory in any sense; by them no satisfaction can be made; nor did God ever intend them to be the ordinary means of applying the merits of the grand Sacrifice; if He had, Sacraments would have been needless things, as well as sacrifices; and this brings me to speak of,
2. The other thing necessary for the receiving pardon of our sin, or any other benefit of Christ’s Passion; and this must be some Divine act passed by God the Father, Son, or Holy Ghost towards τι. For since it is evident to a demon- stration, that the purchase of Christ’s death was not, could not be actually applied by either of these three Divine Persons, at the time of offermg the grand Sacrifice; therefore it fol- lows, that it must be applied from time to time, as occasion requires. And it is extremely vain and groundless to sup- pose, that any particular man can perform this Divine act of applying the merits of Christ’s death to himself. It is an act of God, Who has the sole power of pardoning or con- ferring any spiritual grace upon His creatures; and since God does it not by express revelations made from time to time to His creatures, it is very evident, He performs it to Jews and heathens upon their conversion, in and by Baptism ; to those that are already members of His Church, in and by the Eucharist. These are holy solemn actions, in which the Christian Priest is ordained to act “for men in things pertaiing to God;” and they who are duly admitted by him to be “partakers of the Altar” or to be guests at the Lord’s Table, by the holy action which he there performs by a Divine authority, and according to the instructions given him by “the High-Priest of our oblations,” have the pardon of their sins sealed to them, and are put or continued in the possession of all those graces and benefits, which Christ by dying merited for us. This shews, that prayer or faith can- not impart these blessings to us, for they are our own acts; whereas the forgiveness of sin and the communication
CHAP. Il.
We do no more lessen the merits of Christ’s death than our adver- saries,
398 THE EUCHARIST
of all spiritual mercies must be performed by God; and the usual method in which God performs these acts is in and by the Sacraments. And though Sacraments are administered by the hands of men; yet I have shewed, that according to the judgment of the ancients grounded upon Holy Scripture, the Spirit of God does, by His particular power there present, render the elements effectual to the ends for which they are intended. Great things are said of prayer in the Holy Scrip- tures, and all blessings promised to those who duly practise it; but I apprehend, that all judicious men will acknowledge, that they are the prayers of the Church, put up in public assemblies, to which these promises are made, rather than the private prayers of single Christians; which though they are a necessary duty, yet have not assurance of being ac- cepted in that degree, that public prayers have; and I must add, that the public prayers of the Church, for all the most valuable and desirable blessings, were addressed to God in the primitive Church in the Eucharistical office or Liturgy, and were offered in virtue of the Sacrifice lying in open view. So that all those proofs for the prevalence of prayer were in reality evidences of the propitiatory nature of the Eucharist, in the judgment of the ancients; and that which gave wings and vigour to these prayers was the Sacrifice offered with them and by them. .
Our adversaries agree, that the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ do convey pardon and all the benefits of Christ’s death to the souls of the receivers; and if they allow that these mercies are bestowed by the Sacrament, they must allow that there we must apply ourselves to God for them ; or else they must say, that God bestows these mercies with- out any application made to Him: but none of our adver- saries will say this; for they all use prayer for pardon and grace, in celebrating the Lord’s Supper; and I cannot for my life conceive, how it can lessen the grand Sacrifice more, to apply ourselves to God by exhibiting the Eucharistical Bread and Wine, than by offering what our adversaries call the spiritual Sacrifice of prayer. Why is it a diminution to the personal Sacrifice of Christ, to offer a Sacrifice in the Eucharist? why because, say our adversaries, it supposes that Christ’s personal Sacrifice was not sufficient for the
HOW PROPITIATORY AND EXPIATORY. 399
pardon and salvation of men. If they be asked, how this SECT. follows, or how the Sacrifice of the Eucharist supposes the personal Sacrifice to be insufficient; they must say, that if we thought the personal Sacrifice sufficient we would use no other. Now the answer is obvious, that our Sacrifice is not offered to render the original Sacrifice more meritorious or more satisfactory, but to apply the benefit of It to particular men; and in order to this application, we believe a material Sacrifice necessary to be used: our adversaries own, by their practice at least, that what they call a spiritual Sacrifice is necessary for this purpose; else why do they pray for pardon and grace in the Eucharist? and it is impossible to assign any reason, why the offering of prayer for the application of the merits of Christ’s death should not as much impeach the sufficiency of It, as offering Bread and Wine. Certainly he, who in the Eucharist prays for pardon of sin and grace to amend his life, does as effectually declare that he does not think that the benefits of the grand Sacrifice were applied all at once, and that Christians were finally perfected by the personal oblation, as he who offers the Eucharistical Body and Blood. And neither do they offer the one, nor we the other, as if we thought the satisfaction defective; but only for the deriving and applying the all-sufficient merits of Christ to the souls of particular men. Our adversaries must own, that they offer a spiritual Sacrifice to this end; and we do with the primitive Church believe, that our prayers are to be supported by the material oblation of Christ’s Sacramental Body and Blood; and we cannot conceive, how our Sacrifice does impair or lessen the virtue of Christ’s death more than theirs. And since it is allowed by our adversaries, that the effects of Christ’s death are communicated by the Eucharis- tical Body and Blood to all that duly receive them; this is another tacit acknowledgment, that the grand Sacrifice does not set aside the necessity of a particular application; and that faith and prayer being human actions are not sufficient to make this application, but that it must be done by some Divine action; and where God does perform this action toward baptized Christians otherwise than in the Eucharist, I apprehend they will scarce undertake to inform us. They may say, that this application may be made by God in the
CHAP: Π.
Application of the merits of Christ’s death made by oblation only, in some cases, without actual com- munion,
4.00 THE EUCHARIST
Eucharist, considered as a Sacrament only, not as a Sacri- fice; but then they must suppose, that God makes this ap- plication to us, without any application made by us to Him. For we cannot apply ourselves to God otherwise than by Sacrifice. Our adversaries grant this; but they assert this to be only a mental Sacrifice of prayer, faith, and such hke inward devotions ; and granting this, yet it is evident, that the Sacrament without some sort of Sacrifice is not sufficient — for the application of Christ’s merits; and whether this Sacrifice consist only of such internal actions of the mind, or — of the Body and Blood of Christ there represented, I leave to © be determined by Scripture and antiquity, which I have proved to be with us in this particular. It is therefore sufficiently clear, that God does apply the effects of the great Sacrifice to us in the Eucharist; and that in order to obtain this ap- plication, we must first apply-to Him by Sacrifice, even the Sacrifice of Christ’s Body and Blood. It is evident, that before the death of Christ, pardon was imparted to the Jews by the oblation of the sacrifice for sin, no part of which was returned to the lay-offerer ; but Christ hath provided, that our offering for sin should be shared out among all that attend this Sacrifice, as a token of God’s acceptance of it. But in some cases it seems pretty clear, that the ancients were of opinion, that the application of the merits of Christ’s death might be made by virtue of the oblation only, without eating and drinking the Eucharistical Body and Blood; as for instance, to those who, by banishment, imprisonment for Christ’s sake, or other violent means, were debarred from the privilege of actual communion. As the case of such was always particularly recommended to God in the Eucharistical service ; so no doubt it was done upon an apprehension, that by virtue of this propitiation they had the benefits of Christ’s sufferings imparted to them: and we may remember, St. Cyprian reprehends the lapsing Christian for attempting to communicate, before the Sacrifice had been offered in his behalf; that is, before his name had been particularly men- tioned in the Eucharistic service, among those penitents who were thought fit to be restored to the communion of the Church, the time of their penance being well-nigh com- pleted. Other cases might be mentioned, whereby it would
HOW PROPITIATORY AND EXPIATORY. 401]
appear that the ancient Church believed, that men might receive the application and effects of the grand Sacrifice without receiving the symbols, though not without the obla- tion made for them by name, or however in general terms: which is an undeniable proof that they did believe that oblation could supply the want of communion ; or that the merits of the grand Sacrifice might be applied by the Sacri- fice of the Eucharist to such persons as were incapable of orally receiving. And let not any man suspect, that, by saying this, [ intend to say any thing in behalf of the pri- vate solitary Masses of the Church of Rome; for I own them to be a modern corruption. In the ninth century, when the primitive ardour and purity of the Church was very much eclipsed, the people grew more backward and cold in the duty of communicating; then some Priests presumed to make the oblation without any distribution or communion; and yet even then it was not allowed, or approved; nay, they who did it were censured in divers councils held in France and Germany. I only speak of the efficacy of the oblation in behalf of such as were detained from the Communion by some involuntary and invincible obstacle; and am so far from having any good opinion of the solitary Masses among the Papists, that I am fully satisfied, that in the primitive Church the cblation and communion were inseparable; and that they bad but one Altar in every Church, where all both Clergy and people attended and received: and as a multi- tude of Altars in the same Church is a most unprimitive practice, so the administering or consecrating the Eucharist in private houses, except in times of persecution, was not then used. Perhaps the earliest instance of it is in Uranius’s Life of Paulinus", who had the oblation made in his presence, when he was on his death-bed, the Bishops who were present communicating with him; this was A. D. 431. Andina Penitentiary of the middle ages the Bishop is obliged to con- fess it as a crime, “if he had caused the Missal-service to be sung by the bed-side in a house, where there were many nauseous things®.”
n (Vid. Surii Sanctorum Histt.,tom. &c., published by Petit. [ed. Paris.
iii. p. 733. ] 1677. | © See Joan. de Deo, p. 19. (non [‘‘ Quadragesimum nonum est, quod numerat.) after Theodore’s Penitential, non curavit de Divinis officiis propter
JOHNSON. D d
Private Masses censured.
4.02 THE HOLY TABLE AN ALTAR. CHAE = CHAP. II. SECT. III.
That the Communion Table is a proper Altar.
I HAVE shewed, chap. I. sect. III., that a proper Altar is
not absolutely necessary for the offering a proper Sacrifice.
The ancient Christian Priests, when under a state of persecu-
tion, and in want of external conveniences, might undoubt-
edly offer the Eucharist on the stump of a tree or any rough —
and unhewed stone, as acceptably as if they had used a fabric
of the most costly materials or the most exquisite workman-_
ship. Dr. Cave, from Philostorgius, tells of Lucian the Priest
and Martyr; that when he was in prison for the sake of his religion, and by reason of his chains and the ulcers made im
his flesh by the scourges of his persecutors he could put him-—
self into no other posture, he offered the tremendous Sacri-
fice, lying flat on his back, making use of his own breast in- τὸ
stead of an Altar; and from thence administered it to the © Christians who were with him. And I suppose, no rational —
man will doubt but in such cases the Sacrifice is perfect, —
though the outward decorum of a proper fixed Altar be wanting?.
The Holy But yet I suppose nothing more evident, than that when Altar τα the Church was in a prosperous and quiet state, and enjoyed” ee the freedom of worshipping God and celebrating the Eucha- Church, ist in a way that they thought most agreeable to the Divine will and the nature of the holy mysteries ; they always had,
in the most eminent place of their public assemblies, some
table or structure, which they used as an Altar, and deemed
it to be a real one. The proof of this is to be drawn from
the language of the Church, in which it was commonly called
an Altar, without any abating or mollifying additions. Chry-
sostom tells us4, “Truly tremendous are the mysteries of the
Church, truly tremendous are the Altars;” and’, “You see
Him not in a manger, but on the Altar; not a woman hold-
convivia sua contra auctoritatem Gre- debet.’’—This Penitentiary is published — gorii 44. Di. ο. et quia faciunt cantare in the Appendix by Petit. ]
Missam juxta lectum in domo, ubi p Vid. Lucian, in Cave’s Historia spurcitie multe sunt, et ideo Divinam __Literaria, [p. 107. tom. i. ]
patientiam ad iracundiam provocant : q Ap, 41. Api.
nam nunquam Missa in domo celebrari r M. p. 42. Ap.
THE HOLY TABLE AN ALTAR. 403
ing Him, but the Priest standing by.” St. Chrysostom is particularly cited by Mr. Mede, for asserting, that even in the British Isles Churches and Altars were erected’. It would be endless to go to particulars; and the same may be said in relation to St. Augustine, from whom I will therefore only produce two places‘; “We being many are one Body ; this is the Sacrifice which the Church often repeats in the Sacrament of the Altar, which the Church knows full well.” I have before observed from the ancients and from the Apostle, that the Eucharistical Bread and Wine were be- lieved to be symbols of Christ’s political Body, the Church, as well as of His natural Body; at another place, he speaks of the Eucharist considered as a feast rather than a Sacri- fice; and indeed most sacrifices were of old attended with a feast, as ours is; his words are", “The feast of our Lord is the unity of His Body, not only in the Sacrament of the Altar, but in the bond of peace.” In these two places, the reader will observe, that the Sacrament and Altar were by St. Augustine thought inseparable; as he who calls the Eucharist the Sacrifice of the Church, means the Sacrifice offered only by and in the Church; so he, who calls the same Eucharist the Sacrament of the Altar, means the Sacrament ordinarily celebrated on the Altar only; and St. Augustine was present at the third alias fifth Council of Carthage; by the ninth canon* whereof it is provided, “ that the Sacrament of the Altar be celebrated only by such as are lasting.” St. Jerome evidently calls the Communion Table an Altar, in places already cited’; and St. Ambrose?, which my reader may see in the Appendix. Optatus* speaks of the impiety of the Donatists, in breaking the Altars of the Catho- lics, on which, says he, “the vows of the people and the members of Christ have been borne ;” and at another place? calls it the seat of the Body of Christ.” St. Gregory Nazi- anzen speaks familiarly of a material Altar in the Church,
5 [Kal γὰρ ai Βρεττανικαὶ νῆσοι, αἱ 1664. ]
τῆς θαλάττης ἐκτὺς κείμεναι ταύτης, καὶ ' z. p. dd. Ap. ἐν αὔτῳ οὖσαι τῷ ᾿Ωκεανῷ, τῆς δυνά- υ μεως τοῦ ρἥματος ἤσθοντο. καὶ γὰρ Spo ls Ap
κἀκεῖ ἐκκλησίαι, καὶ θυσιαστήρια πεπή- Υ 6. p. 28, and o. p. 29. Ap. yaow.—Tom. vi. p. 635. ed. Savile. ] * d. p. 26, and n. p. 27. Ap. See Mede, “Of the name of Altar.” a a..p. 22. Ap:
—[Mede’s Works, vol. i. p. 491. ed. 5 CApw 22. ἌΡ;
pd2
SECT. III.
CHAP. Il.
Prov. ix.
. Mede’s writing, to produce a single instance of this Father's
404 THE HOLY TABLE AN ALTAR.
in places also before produced®. We have heard Eusebius asserting? “that Christ erected Altars, and caused dedica- tions of Churches.” Mr. Mede also cites his description of the Altar in the Church of Tyre*, but in another place he speaks of the translation of the Altar, as a principal alteration made in the Christian ceconomy, and by which the Church is chiefly distinguished from the tabernacle or temple; for, says he‘, “The Altar being translated, contrary to the placits of Moses, there is an absolute necessity that there should be a change of Moses’ Law, and that an Altar of unbloody rational sacrifices, according to the new mysteries of the new Covenant, be erected through the whole habitable world to the one only Lord:” and St. Athanasius explains the word ‘Table,’ by ‘ Altar;’ this latter bemg in that age the most known name of that holy fabric. The words deserve to be transcribed, viz., τράπεζαν, τοῦτεστι, TO ἅγιον θυσιαστή- plov, Kat ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ ἄρτον οὐράνιον καὶ ἄφθαρτον" “the Table, that is, the holy Altar, and the heavenly uncorrupted Bread upon it%.” Mr. Mede further observes, that St. Cyprian ~ uses the word Altar, of the Lord’s Table, ten times in his Epistles only; and I must add, as that learned man does, “whether he useth the name Table, I know not®.” For it does not appear to me, that the adversaries of the Sacri- fice and Altar have been able, ever since the time of Mr.
applying that name to the sacred Board. ‘The reader, by casting his eye to my citations, will see that St. Cyprian does very often give this compellation of Altar to the Com- munion Table; and I am apt to think, that if ever he had called it otherwise, we should have heard of it long ago. He says indeed more than once, that it was pointed out by “ Solo-— mon’s table,” but so the Eucharistical Sacrifice was prefigured by the Paschal Lamb; but no man from thence did ever con- clude, that the Eucharist was a bloody or animal sacrifice. The industrious Voigtus observes, that Origen reprehends some Priests for carrying themselves in a lofty theatric manner,
© ¢. di esp: 21:-Ap: & Disput. contra Arium, [tom. i. p. 4 b. p. 15. Ap. 122. ed. Par. 1627.] See Mede, [p. © [p. 490. ] é 489.
fd, p. 15. Ap. h [p. 488. ]
THE HOLY TABLE AN ALTAR. 405
in the “circle of the Altar,” in his third Homily on Judges' ; Mr. Bingham) cites him for so usmg the word im his tenth Homily on Numbers; but I apprehend he does it much more clearly in the eleventh Homily, in a passage cited in my Ap- pendix®. Tertullian gives it the name of Altar’ and of Ara™; and Mr. Mede cites him" as using the word Altar for the same thing, in De exhortatione castitatis. St. Irenzus says°, “The Apostles of our Lord inherit neither lands nor houses, but always attend God and the Altar.” And Mr. Bmgham? cites him for saying‘, that “we ought to offer a gift at the Altar frequently, without intermission ;” both these citations escaped the diligence of Mr. Mede and Voigtus too. It does not appear, that Justin Martyr and Athenagoras or Clemens Alexandrinus had ever any occasion in their writings to mention this holy utensil; and so they can afford no evidence either for or against us. St. Ignatius four several times ex- pressly calls it an Altar. He speaks’ of “one Eucharist, one Flesh of Christ, one Cup, one Altar, one Bishop;” δια" bids the Magnesians “run to one Temple, one Altar, one Jesus Christ ;” he adds‘, “ He that is within the Altar is clean,” by “the Altar” meaning the Altar-room, the Chancel; and again", “He that is not within the Altar,” or Altar-room, “is deprived of the Bread of God.” St. Clement of Rome tells the Corinthians’, that ‘Sacrifice is not to be offered every where, but at the Altar ;” and St. Barnabas is most probably to be understood of the Holy Table, when he bids men “come up higher, and in a more honourable manner, unto the Altar’.” In a word, it does not appear to me, that the Holy Board is ever called a Table in the three first centuries but once, and that is by Dionysius of Alexandria in his letter to Xystus of Rome. The most diligent Voigtus has discovered but this single mstance*. It is in the narra- tive, which Dionysius gives, of a clergyman, who discovered that the Baptism he had received was heretical and as he
i See Voigt. de Altarib., cap. ii
> vol. ii. p. 434.
sect. 32. 1 f, p. 5, 6. Ap..1. 38. ἦ [vol. ii. p. 434. ] Σ᾿ ΟῚ Ὁ, 2 Ape seep. LO) Ap. BT dps 2e Ap: biceps 8. Ap. te. p. 2. Ap. π᾿ ἢ Pp. o--Ap. bE ope Ie ΔΌΣ " (Vid. Mede’s Works, vol. i. p. Vr Dapleeapalmls. 487. ] w chap. i.
[p. 76.]
Called a Table but once in the three first centuries.
406 THE HOLY TABLE AN ALTAR.
CHAP. thought invalid; after he had long lived in the communion -. Β' of the Catholic Church, and “standing at the Table (Gr. tpa- πέζῃ παράσταντα) had stretched forth his hands to receive the holy Food.” In the fourth century, it is owned that it was frequently so called; but to shew that this was an innova- tion, Athanasius thought himself obliged to explain his own word, and to let the reader know that by ‘Table’ he meant ‘ Altar,’ because the latter was the most known and fami- liar name. And I suppose it is altogether incredible, that the Church should call the most known part of the sacred furni- ture by a name not at all agreeable to the use of it, and very rarely indeed by that name which best fitted it; and if it therefore be an error to call the Holy Board an Altar, it is an error of a very particular nature, and contrary to all other that ever prevailed in the Church. It was in full force — in the ages next succeeding that of the Apostles, but in the following ages it did very much abate; for whereas there is but one clear instance of it’s being called a Table in the first three centuries, it was not unusual in the following times to call it ‘the Holy Table, ‘the mystical or spiritual Table,’ or ‘the Table, without an epithet; as may be seen in the citations from Eusebius, St. Chrysostom, and St. Augustine, in the Appendix. The Fathers of the three first centuries | certainly knew the import of ‘an Altar,’ as well at least as any that ever lived since; and they knew very well the con- nexion between an Altar and a Sacrifice; and if they had in the least suspected, that the name would have given men a wrong idea of the thing, they would certainly have wholly forborne to use that name, or have taken care to intimate to their readers that they were not to take it in a proper sense ; or if some particular men had ventured to give it that title, they would by others have been called upon to explain them- selves and to remove the scandal: but contrary to all this, the name Altar was familiarly and even generally given to the Holy Table, without any appearance of question or dis- pute upon this subject; and it may as well be doubted, whether what the primitive Church called Baptism, Eucha- rist, Bishop, or the Holy Scripture, were those things which now pass under those names, as whether what they called an Josh. xxii. altar was a real altar. When the Reubenites and Gadites
THE HOLY TABLE AN ALTAR. 407
gave the title of an altar to that monument, which they had erected for a testimony of their right and obligation to attend the worship of God in the tabernacle, as well as the rest of the Israelites; the rest of the tribes took umbrage at it, and supposed it to be an overt declaration of their mtentions to offer “ burnt-offerings and sacrifice” on that altar, if not to another God, yet in another place than what was prescribed by the Law of Moses; and the other tribes express their re- sentment and suspicions in a most zealous and unanimous manner against this presumed innovation ; nor could they be pacified, until the Reubenites and Gadites had fully satisfied _ them, that though they had given the name of an altar to this monument, yet the structure was not intended for the use which the name imported. As this shews the natural coherence and relation between an altar and a sacrifice, ac- cording to the common conceptions of mankind; so it is not consistent with that common prudence, which all that are not malicious enemies to primitive Christianity must allow to the Fathers of the first ages, to suppose that they should so generally agree in calling the Communion Table an Altar, and that no one single writer should ever hint any dislike of this name, especially if the notion of a material sacrifice be so dangerous and full of mischief, as some would represent it. If the primitive Fathers of the two or three first ages had indifferently called it Table or Altar, it had been no prejudice to the cause of the Sacrifice. Dr. Light- foot’ tells us, that the altar of burnt-offerings was indif- ferently called an altar or a table by the Talmudists, in his note on 1 Cor. x. 21; but no one will from thence con- clude that they did not think it an altar in the most proper and strict sense; for every altar is a table, though every table be not an altar. And I do not suppose it necessary, that men should perpetually call every thing by it’s most proper and distinguishing name. If the ancients sometimes call the Eucharist “the Lord’s Supper,” of which I am not very sure, yet it does not by any means follow that they did not think it a Sacrifice; because it is very consistent for the same thing to be offered as a sacrifice, and to be eaten asa feast ; but when it is in the three first centuries called above Y [ Vid. vol. ii. p. 769. ed. 1684. ]
SECT. Ill.
CHAP. Il.
Lord’s Table and Altar the same thing in Scrip- ture.
408 THE HOLY TABLE AN ALTAR.
twenty times an Altar, and a Table but once; if we may not from hence conclude, that ‘ Altar’ was then thought the most proper name; we must for the future cease to argue from the words of others, and learn some more sure way of
guessing at their thoughts. .
But since our adversaries have so great an aversion to the name ‘ Altar,’ let them tell us what other appellation they can prove to belong to it. Let them tell us, how it was called by the Apostles or Christ Jesus Himself. To this they can only say, that Dionysius, two hundred and fifty or sixty years after Christ, calls it simply a Table; and must we suppose ~ that Dionysius better understood names and things than St. Cyprian, Origen, Tertullian, St. Irenzus, St. Ignatius, and St. Clement? And shall we take a measure of the notions and language of the Church from six of the greatest and most eminent writers of these ages, or from one single person, who as he was the last in time, so he was not the greatest in any other quality that makes him capable of being an evidence in this case?
If it be said, St. Paul calls the Holy Board a ‘Table;? I answer, no, not simply ‘a Table,’ as Dionysius does, but the Lord’s Table, 1 Cor. x. 21; and I have elsewhere proved, that by this expression we are to understand an Altar; for wherever else it is used in Scripture, that is clearly the meaning of it; as the reader may be satisfied, by perusing the four places where we meet with this word in the Old Testament, viz. Ezek. xli. 22; xliv. 16, and Mal. 1. 7, 12. And he, that after having read these texts can doubt, whether by the Lord’s Table in every one of them be meant the Altar, may please further to consider, what I have offered to this purpose in the Propitiatory Oblation, p. 51—56; and since this phrase does everywhere else denote an Altar, we must be extremely prejudiced, if we will against such evidence take it mm another sense, in the text of St. Paul; the only place where this utensil is mentioned in Holy Scripture, ex- cept that Heb. xi. 10, where it is expressly called an Altar by the same Apostle. The truth is, ‘the Table of the Lord’ was the most honourable title that the Prophets and Apostle could give to a proper Altar. I have at another place shewed that our Saviour does plainly express His intentions, that He
THE HOLY TABLE AN ALTAR. 409
would have an Altar in His Church, in that text, Matt. v. 23, “Tf thou bring thy gift to the Altar, &c.,”’ which Mr. Mede has clearly demonstrated to be an evangelical precept?. It is true, our Saviour in that place does not directly inform His hearers, what He intended to be the principal Sacrifice to be offered at that Table; but He evidently supposes a material gift there to be offered, such a gift as might be left before the Altar. And the primitive Church, instructed in this point by the Apostles, did upon the same Altar present the material Bread and Wine, and solemnly offer part of that Bread and Wine to God, as the representative Body and Blood of Christ. And I have good reason to believe, that if our adversaries had the one half of that evidence against an Altar, which I have here produced for it, we should be im- pleaded of obstinacy and stupidity, if we persisted in our pretensions. But let us consider what our adversaries have to offer, by way of reply to these authorities.
I. It is said that the Holy Table was called an Altar, on account of the first-fruits and other provisions for the Clergy and poor, which were there offered. To this I answer,
(1.) Be it so; yet this clearly supposes a material Altar and a material oblation.
(2.) Let it be shewed, that such oblations were ever brought to this Altar, but at and in order to the Holy Communion ; or that the oblation of Bread and Wine was ever looked upon otherwise in the primitive Church than as a necessary part of the Eucharistical solemnity ; the Bread and Wine, for the Sacrifice strictly so called; the other oblations, for the sup- port of those who offered and attended on the Sacrifice and Altar. For if the offering of Bread and Wine on the Altar, and the offermg of the Body and Blood of Christ, were always in the first ages inseparable actions ; then we have no more reason to say that the Christian Altar was only for re- ceiving first-fruits and alms, than that the altar of burnt- offering was only intended for the depositing such beasts or other things, animate or inanimate, as were brought thither by the Israelites; for the laying them on the Altar and the solemn offering them to God are, in both cases, but only two several parts of the same oblation.
7
See Propitiatory Oblaiion, p. 19.
SECT. ΠῚ.
Whether the Altar were so called only on account of the lay offerings.
CHAP. I
Whether the Altar
be socalled,
only as it is acentre of unity.
410 THE HOLY TABLE AN ALTAR. ;
(3.) I have proved, that by the practice of the primitive | Church which was learned from the Apostles, and by the in- — tendment of Christ Jesus Himself, the Eucharist was thought
a real Sacrifice, and offered as such; and that they judged ἃ proper Altar, though not absolutely necessary to the internal — perfection of the Sacrifice, yet very requisite to the outward — decorum of it. ᾿
II. It has been said that the Holy Table is called an Altar ; by way of allusion, because what the altar at Jerusalem was to the Jews, that the Communion Table is to us, viz., a centre of unity?; and this is said by way of reply to St. [gnatius’s call- ing it an Altar four times in his Epistles. To this I answer,
(1.) If indeed St. Ignatius had once or twice by chance so called it, or if this name were given to it very rarely, or only by some one or two writers, this might seem somewhat better than amere cavil; but since it appears that ‘Altar’ or ‘ Lord’s Table’ was the ordinary, nay, perpetual name of this utensil for the first 250 years; and since in after-ages, though the name ‘Table,’ without any addition, was frequently given to it, yet no single person can be produced that ever denied it to be an Altar for very many centuries; therefore we must believe that this was thought it’s distinguishing character- istic title. For we must believe the Christian writers to be the most singular that ever yet appeared, if for so long a tract of time as 250 years they never gave it any other but a nickname; and in all succeeding ages, until now of late, this name has still been allowed to the Holy Board without any control or opposition.
(2.) If they had spoken only by way of allusion to it’s being a centre of unity, they might rather have chosen the word ‘Table’ than ‘ Altar ;’ for every body knows that there were in the temple two altars by God’s appointment, that of burnt-offering and that of incense; but there was but one table placed in the temple by God’s direction, viz., that of shew-bread, and the Fathers do very frequently speak of this shew-bread as a prefiguration of the Eucharist; but when they speak of the eminence on which the Eucharist is offered and consecrated, they do for the most part style it an Altar, especially in the earliest times.
* See Dr. Hancock's Answer, p. 28.
THE HOLY TABLE AN ALTAR. 411
(3.) Ignatius does not speak of the Altar only as a centre sey of unity, but as a sacred Table for the Bread of God; and for this reason declares» that ‘‘ He who is not within the Altar-room is deprived of the Bread of God.” And I have shewed that as by ‘the Table of the Lord’ is always meant an Altar, so by ‘the Bread of God’ is always meant some mate- rial offering, in the most solemn manner consecrated to God.
(4.) If this way of interpreting Scripture and antiquity be
allowed of, it will soon evaporate all religion into mere airy notion. Thus Baptism does, according to the Quakers, de- note only an inward washing by the Spirit, and is called by that name only with an allusion to the external washings of the Levitical Law and John the Baptist ; eating the Body and Blood of Christ is nothing but regaling the soul with the heavenly Divine Seed and Light within, and is spoken in allusion to the divers meats and drinks of the Jewish Law. St. Clement’s High-Priest, Priest, and Levite, and St. Igna- tius’s Bishop, Priest, and Deacon are not three real orders of evangelical officers, but the Gospel-ministry represented under the titles and degrees of the Jewish Priesthood; or rather they are the sanctified people, such as are under the conduct of the Divine Light.
III. The learned Voigtus® would have it, that the Altar Whether was so called on account of the Sacramental Body of Christ ; {2°43
be so called
wherein, according to his sentiments, the personal Body was °F pea
contained (for he was a Lutheran) and laid on this Table, secthced Ξ Ξ - oay Ο and from thence distributed to the communicants; but Christ lying
(1.) It is without example for any thing to be called an “™ -
Altar on account of a Sacrifice being laid upon it, except the act of oblation be there performed ; and until some precedent be produced, whereby it may appear that a Table made for the receiving Sacrifices and oblations, after they have been first offered on some other fabric or utensil, was styled an Altar, all that is said by Voigtus on this head is perfectly precarious.
(2.) I have produced abundant proof that the Sacramental Body and Blood were not only laid on the Altar, but that they were there actually and solemnly offered to God; and that therefore it was not only called an Altar, but was one;
ba. p. 1. Ap. © (cap. ii. sect. xlii. ]
CHAP.
Il
_____ was laid; but.that Table of the Lord, on which It was offered.
412 THE HOLY TABLE AN ALTAR.
It was not only the bier, on which the dead Body of Christ _
IV. It may be pretended that the Holy Table was called — an Altar, on account of the spiritual Sacrifices, viz., prayer . and praise there offered. But, :
(1.) It is irrational to suppose that a material Altar should _ : be raised for the offering of immaterial Sacrifices, such as ᾿ our adversaries mean by ‘spiritual.’ A table is but a very indifferent convenience for offering prayer; a desk or pulpit much more eligible.
(2.) I have nowhere met with any passage in antiquity intimating that Altars were erected only for this purpose. And without this all that men write or say on this head must be mere conjecture. That prayers were indeed used at the Altar is as evident as that they were Altars; for by these prayers the oblation was made: nor do I confine the word ‘prayers’ to the oblatory and consecratory part of the Liturgy, but I mean it of the whole Eucharistical office, which was unquestionably performed by the celebrator standing at the Altar, excepting such parts as belonged to the Deacon. I now speak of the early times only, while the Clementine Liturgy, or one very like it, was everywhere used‘.
(3.) It is true Origen says, “It is on the Altar that we offer our prayers to God,” in his ninth Homily on Leviticus® ; and the reason of this is evident from what has before been shewed, viz., that the ancients believed that their supplications and prayers were rendered effectual by virtue of the Body and Blood of Christ, Which were offered on the Altar, and Which lay there in open view, during the time of their most solemn devotions and intercessions: and so must Optatus be understood, when he says to the Donatists‘, “ Why have ye subverted the vows and desires of men together with the Altars? From thence the people’s prayers used to ascend to the ears of God; why have ye cut off the intercourse of prayer, and laboured as it were to take away the ladder with an impious hand, lest our supplications should ascend to God
ἃ “Nor does it appear that there tury.’’ [1st ed.] were originally any other prayers used, e [Tom. ii. p. 286. “ Altare enim as the common stated devotions of the est super quod orationes nostras offeri- Church, but in the Eucharist only, mus Deo.’’} however not before the fourth cen- f aa. p. 22. Ap.
THE HOLY TABLE AN ALTAR. 418
in the accustomed manner?” It is said that “Abraham SECT. builded an altar, and called upon the name of the Lord.” If aa, ee any writer of the first ages had said this of the Apostles or χῆϊ 4. ” primitive Christians, we have little reason to doubt but our adversaries would from thence have concluded, that the Altar
was built only for immaterial Sacrifice; and yet I believe no
one will doubt but Abraham called on the name of the Lord,
by offering animate or inanimate creatures on his altar; for
his sacrifices were ‘speaking sacrifices’ as well as those of
Abel, though they consisted of dumb and dead creatures ;
and if he by offering such sacrifices be said “to call on the
name of the Lord ; much more may the Sacramental Body
and Blood be called “the prayers, vows, and desires of men ;”
and the Altar on which That Body and Blood lie, “the ladder
by which they ascend to heaven.”
V. Our adversaries do frequently tell us that Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Tertullian, Minutius Felix, Arnobius, and Lactantius, deny that Christians had Sacrifices or Altars. To which I answer, that
(1.) The writings of these ancients, in which they suppose that they deny any Sacrifice in the Christian Church, are such as were chiefly intended for the use of the heathen. The three first in their Apologies, and the other three in the books they wrote against the heathen worship and in behalf of the Christian religion, do say that which gives occasion to our adversaries to speak of them as if they favoured their notions. If therefore all or some of these ancients should have never so expressly told the heathen that Christians had no sacrifices nor altars; all that could in equity be meant by it was this, that they had no bloody sacrifices, no altars with fire-hearths; for they were speaking to the heathen, who in that age made no account of any other sacrifices or altars. Thus any Protestant of the Church of England, in disputing with a Dissenter, may safely and truly deny that our Liturgy is a Mass-book: because Dissenters have no other notion of a Mass, nor indeed the generality of Pro- testants, than that it signifies the corrupt office for the Sacrament of Christ’s Body and Blood now used in the Church of Rome. And it is certainly true, that, according to this prevailing signification of the word, we have no Mass-
CHAP. Il.
4.14 THE HOLY TABLE AN ALTAR.
book ; but if by a Mass-book be meant a collection of rules and prayers for celebrating the Eucharist (as the word ‘ Mass’ signifies in the sixth canon of the African Code), then no learned Church-of-England-man would deny that we have such a book.
(2.) As to the three first writers above mentioned, they are very far from denying that Christians have Altars or Sacrifices. Justin Martyr says, that ‘“ Christians conceive that God does not stand in need of gross material oblations (ὑλικῆς προσφορᾶς).᾽ and so say we too; nay, we say, that God wants no oblations at all. Tertullian says, “ We sacri- fice for the safety of the emperor—but, as God hath com- manded, with pure prayer: for God, the Creator of the uni- verse, does not want the perfume or blood of any creature®.” A certain Doctor, in urging this citation, thought fit to add of his own, “nor any material thing.” For he was con- scious that Tertullian did not say enough for his purpose; and we can easily grant, nay, we believe it a certain truth, that God does not want any material thing or sacrifice, no, nor yet immaterial; so that it is not easy to conceive what our adversaries mean by producing such proofs, except it be to expose themselves. Both St. Justin and Tertullian do in other places expressly own the Christian Sacrifice. The former never mentions the Altar under any name or title; the other does give it the appellation, not only of Altar, but ‘Ara,’ as has been shewed; and im this very place, he owns the Christians did sacrifice, but with ‘pure prayer; that is, not with fire and smoke, as Jews and heathen did; for prayer was the only medium by which Christians offered their Sacrifice. Athenagoras says’, “the Maker and Father of the universe wants not blood and nidor, flowers and fra- grant perfumes :—but it is a very great sacrifice to Him, if we know Him that extended the heavens—that made man.
δ [“ Ab universis episcopis dictum est, chrismz confectio, et puellarum consecratio a presbyteris non fiat, vel reconciliare quemquam in publica mis- sa presbytero non licere, hoc omnibus placet.’”,—Can. VI. See Codex Cano- num Eccles. Africane, Ed. Justelli. }
BS [iq panos ΔΝ]
'['O τοῦδε τοῦ παντὸς Δημιουργὸς καὶ Πατὴρ οὐ δεῖται αἵματος, οὐδὲ κνίσ-
σης, οὐδὲ τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνθῶν καὶ θυμι- αμάτων εὐωδίας, Αὐτὸς dy 7 τελεία εὐωδία, ἀνενδεὴς καὶ ἀπροσδεής᾽" ἀλλὰ θυσία Αὐτῳ μεγίστη, ἂν γινώσκωμεν τίς ἐξέτεινε καὶ συνέσφαιρωσε τοὺς οὐρανοὺς---καὶ ἄνθρωπον ἔπλασεν.---Τί δέ μοι ὁλοκαυτώσεων, ὧν μὴ δεῖται 6 Θεός ; καίτοι προσφέρειν δέον ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν, καὶ τὴν λογικήν προσάγειν λα- tpelav.—pp. 48, 49. ed. Oxon. 1706. ]
THE HOLY TABLE AN ALTAR. 415
—But what do I care for sacrifices and holocausts, for which God has no occasion? It rather becomes us to offer the unbloody Sacrifice to God, and present to Him the rational service.”
As to Minucius Felix, his words run thus, as often cited by others, viz. Nullas aras habent, templa nulla, nulla nota simulacra; ‘“‘They have neither altars, nor temples, nor images of note)” But it ought to be observed, that these are the words of Cecilius; who, in this Dialogue of Minucius Felix, is the advocate for heathenism, and takes the liberty of saying what he pleases, by way of reproach against the Christians. He had just before charged them with the killing a child, and eating the flesh of it, and with in- cestuous mixtures. And is it not an extraordinary proof that Christians had no altars, to allege the words of one that was saying every thing of Christianity, true or false, that he thought would make it look odious in the eyes of others? It is certain, our atheists may as well cite the words of Cecilius as a proof of the savageness and the incestuous mixtures of the primitive Christians, as the adversaries of the Sacrifice for what he says of altars and temples.
As for what is said by Arnobius and Lactantius, I do not think it of any moment in this controversy. Not that I think them to be so opposite to the doctrine of the Sacrifice, as our adversaries represent them; but because I look on their authority as none. No ancient writers (for they flourished in the beginning of the fourth century) are liable to more just exception. And I think St. Jerome’s censure* of them allowed by the most judicious moderns; that “ they destroy the Ethnic religion rather than establish the Chris- tian.” Arnobius wrote against the Gentiles, while he was yet but a catechumen, and therefore unacquainted with the Christian Sacrifice. Lactantius was his scholar, and though he outdid his master in rhetoric, and is called the Cicero of the Christians; yet they seem to have been both equally novices in the Christian theology. I can without any great difficulty or concern consider them as patrons, not only of
i [Chap. x. p. 9. ed. Oxon. 1662.] nostra confirmare potuisset, quam facile K [“ Lactantius quasi quidam flu- aliena destruxit.’”—Ad Paulinum, De vius eloquentie Tullianez, utinam tam __institutione monachi, circa finem. |
SECT. Ill.
Our adver- saries’ in- consistence.
416 THE HOLY TABLE AN ALTAR.
them who are adversaries to the Christian Sacrifice, but even
- οὗ the Arians and other heterodox opiniators. It is suffi-
cient, that the Sacrifice and Altar are supported by those, who best knew the Christian religion, and whose authority will be of greatest weight in this and all other disputes. Before I proceed to another head of discourse, I cannot but reflect on the inconsistence of those pleas, which have been advanced against the Sacrifice. Sometimes our adver- saries tell us, that the ancients declared against the Altar and Sacrifice; and to prove what they say, they can only produce some passages out of these writers last mentioned, wherein they do indeed seem to disown these things to un- cautious readers. At other times our adversaries say, that the Fathers used to speak of Sacrifice and Altar in the Chris- tian Church in order to reconcile the Jews and Gentiles to Christianity, by representing it as hike to their religion as possible ; and to make a Christian Church look as like the temples of the Jews and heathens as they well could, and more like than in truth it was, if we may believe some modern ~ Divines ; but in reality, the ancient Fathers did directly the contrary. If they ever dropped any words that seem to im- — port no Sacrifice or Altar among Christians, they did it in — their discourses to the heathen; and when our adversaries produce their allegations from antiquity against the Sacrifice, they are almost or altogether drawn from books that were | addressed to the Gentiles; which is a plain demonstration of the integrity of these holy men, who were so far from temporizing, or accommodating themselves to the erroneous opinions of those heathen whom they endeavoured to con- vince, that they rather disown Sacrifice and Altar than study to catch them with such baits. Nay, it is very evident, that they were very cautious and reserved in speaking to their catechumens upon this head. On the other side, they never speak more frankly and copiously of the Sacrifice and Altar, than when they speak in confidence to those who were the dispensers of, or communicants in, the holy mysteries. Thus for instance, St. Irenzeus has more largely and directly as- — serted the Eucharistical oblation than any other writer of the two first centuries ; and he does it in a book, that never was intended for the perusal of Jews or heathen, but was com-
=
THE HOLY TABLE AN ALTAR. 417
posed to be put into the hands of the Christian Clergy and people as an antidote against the heresies of that age. In the third century, St. Cyprian delivered his sentiments so fully and openly, in his letter to Bishop Cecilius, that he says more on the subject of the Sacrifice, and wholly in fa- vour of it, inthat one Epistle, than you will find said concern- ing the Eucharist in all the writings of Justin, Tertullian, Athenagoras, Arnobius, and Lactantius, put all together. And in the fourth century, Cyril of Jerusalem, in five very short catechetical lectures, written for the instruction of young communicants, says more to the purpose of the real Sacrifice of the Eucharist, than can be found in all the works of some voluminous writers, who intended the main of their labours for the reading of Jews and heathens as well as Christians. So that in this respect, owr adversaries represent things topsy-turvy; they would persuade their readers, that the Fathers spoke of Sacrifices to deceive Jews and heathens into a good opinion of Christianity ; whereas, if the Fathers do ever disown Sacrifice in the Church, it is in their discourses to these Jews and heathen. And if ever they speak more frankly and apertly of the Sacrifice and Altar, it is between themselves; and certaily if men do ever speak the whole truth, it is when they are writing and discoursing to their most intimate friends and associates, to them who are, in the main, of the same sentiments with them-
selves. And since the ancients do never discourse so per- _ emptorily and decisively of the Christian Altar and Sacrifice, and use so many and such strong words, as when they are treating with those who were partakers of the same holy mysteries; I think this consideration to be of very great moment, in determining the present controversy ; as like- wise a great proof of the integrity of those holy men. It evidently therefore appears, that ‘ Altar’ is the most proper name of the Communion-Table; and though Altar is not essential to Sacrifice, yet I suppose whatever is offered on a proper Altar is a Sacrifice properly so called.
JOHNSON, ΕΘ
SECT. 1Π.
418 BISHOPS AND PRIESTS SACRIPICERS.
CHAP. Tl.
CHAP. ΤΙ -SECT.1V-
That Bishops and Priests are the only proper officers for the solemn offering and consecrating of the Christian Eu- τ charist. |
Anp I am apt to think, that this doctrine is capable of as clear proof from antiquity as any in the whole Christian system. As the oblation and consecration were inseparable and interwoven with each other in fact, so that he who per- formed one, must perform the other ; so I take it for granted, that those authorities from the ancients, which prove, that the consecration was appropriated to the Priest, do equally prove the same of the oblation, and vice versa. I must further observe, that I take it for an unquestionable truth, — that whatever power belonged to the Priest belonged to the Bishop also in a most eminent manner; and that therefore those citations, which mention Priests as proper officers, do imply Bishops to be so too. And that therefore all the fol- lowing authorities prove this privilege to belong to Bishops ; whereas those only, where the Priest is expressly mentioned, do prove him to be a proper officer for the offering and con- secrating this mystery. Now I suppose it will not be ex- pected, that every authority to be produced on this occasion should amount to an exclusion of all others from this right or prerogative ; but that it will be sufficient to shew,
1. That Bishops and Priests were invested with this power.
2. That the inferior Clergy and laity were denied it.
3. That this power was thought the greatest privilege, that belonged to Priests, that is, the second order of Evangelical Ministers.
1. As to the first point, the reader will observe, that Theodoret! speaks of the symbols as “ offered to God by such as have been consecrated,” which words include both Bishop and Priest: for the distinction of ordaining a Priest, and consecrating a Bishop, was not, I suppose, so early as Theo- doret. He™ attributes “the change” in the elements “to —
1, p, 46, Ap. mM. Pp; 0. ἌΡ. Lie.
BISHOPS AND PRIESTS SACRIFICERS. 419
the invocation made by the Priest.” The suffrage of Cyril SECT. of Alexandria is very decisive"; “It is not lawful to conse- ———— crate the mystery in Christ in every place; for the only place agreeable and peculiar to it is the Holy City, that is, a Church in which there is a lawful Priest, and the holy Sacrifices are celebrated by consecrated hands.” I say nothing of St. Chrysostom in this place, because his books De Sacerdotio are so well known of late to Englishmen, by the late learned Mr. Hughes’s translation of them; and whoever looks into that translation must be satisfied, that St. Chrysostom is entirely ours. Gaudentius asserts®, that Christ “ commanded His faithful Disciples, whom He constituted the first Priests of His Church, that they should without ceasing celebrate the mysteries of eternal life—until Christ come again from heaven.” St. Jerome”, speaking of the Bishops, says, “ Far be it from me to speak a sinister word of them, who, succeed- ing the order of the Apostles, do consummate the Body of Christ with their sacred voice.” And he would have a Bishop? “dwell in the holy places, and be ready to offer victims for the people, as an agent between God and man, that consummates the Body of Christ with his sacred voice.” St. Ambrose has the following remarkable words’, “ We have seen, and we hear the Prince of Priests offering for us His own Blood; let us that are Priests follow Him to our ability, though weak as to merit, yet honourable on account of our Sacrifice, let us offer a Sacrifice for the people ; for though Christ is not seen to offer, yet He Himself is offered on earth, when His Body is offered ; nay, He Himself does manifestly offer by us.”” Ephrem Syrus’ reckons this the dignity of the Priesthood, that “it is dedicated to mysteries and Sacri- fices ’’ and, soon after, attributes the consecration to the prayer of the Priest. St. Basil declares, that “ when the Priest has consummated the Sacrifice, and distributed It, he that receives receives the whole in every part.” Optatus bids the uncharitable communicant “leave his gift before the Altar" ; that the Priest may not offer for him,” while he is in this
* d. p. 43. Ap. rc. p, 26. Ap, 2 cop. 90. Ap. 1. 9. £ a. p. 25. Ap. P a. p. 28, Ap. td. p. 23. Ap, ᾳ 5, p. 29. Ap. beep, 22. Ap,
4.20 BISHOPS AND PRIESTS SACRIFICERS.
CHAP. condition. Epiphanius gives his opinion*, that “ the Priest- _ hood is translated to the order of Melchisedec, which {order} was before that of Levi and Aaron, which now even to this time officiates in the Church under Christ; not any one family, by way of succession, being selected for this pur- pose, but a character required as to virtue or ability,” (Gr. κατ’ ἀρετὴν). The reader, upon considering these words of Epiphanius, will be naturally led to reflect on the words of St. Paul, viz. “This Man, because He con- tinueth for ever, hath an unchangeable Priesthood,” or a Priesthood “ that passeth not from one to another:” for so Heb. vii.24. 1 think it is best rendered in the margin of our translation. And these words must be understood of the High-Priesthood, with which our Saviour is invested ; which is indeed without succession of any sort, because our High-Priest is immortal. But then the very notion of a High-Priest carries along with it a supposition of other inferior Priests acting under Him. And in this sense Epiphanius and other of the ancients, esteemed Christian Bishops and Priests to be of the order of Melchisedec, as officiating by virtue of a commission received from the Divine Melchisedec. And though the High-Priest. be immortal, the inferior Priests are not so. St. Gregory NazianzenY addresses the Bishops and Priests of Constan- tinople by calling them “ Priests, who offer unbloody Sacri- fices.” And speaking of himself, and of the qualifications necessary for the Priesthood2, “ How durst I without these,” says he, “offer the antitype of the great mysteries, or be in- vested with the character and title of a Priest?” St. Hilary says*, Sacrificit opus sine Presbytero esse non potuit, “ Sacri- fice cannot be offered without a Priest.” Hilary the Deacon, speaking of the words used at imposition of hands in ordina- tion, says”, that “by them he that is elected is authorized for his function, so as that he may dare to offer the Sacrifice in- stead of our Lord.” In his commentary on Ephesians iv. he supposes, and only supposes, that believers in the beginning were allowed to preach and baptize ; but he does not dare to say, that they were allowed to offer or consecrate the Eucha-
* a. p. 21. Ap. "See Mr. Bingham’s Antiquities, 7h. p25 Ap: vol. i. pp. 269, 290. Seay ΡΥ; cep: b bi ». 30. -Ap:
BISHOPS AND PRIESTS SACRIFICERS. 421
rist. Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem‘, speaking of himself and
SECT.
those of his order, has these words, “ We offer Christ, Who ————
was slain for our sins, propitiating. That God, That is a lover of men, for them [the people} and for ourselves.” Eusebius speaks very fully in the following words‘, “ Our Saviour Jesus, the Christ of God, does yet celebrate by His Ministers the functions of His hierurgy, after the manner of Melchi- sedec ; for as he being a Priest of the Gentiles never appears to have offered corporeal Sacrifices, but blessed Abraham in bread and wine, in like manner first our Saviour, and then all Priests from Him, celebrating the spiritual hierurgy over all nations, according to the laws of the Church, mysteriously represent His Body and salutary Blood in Bread and Wine.” St. Cyprian asks*, “ What Sacrifices the rivals of the Priests can celebrate?” And thus describes a leader in schism’, “Contemning the Bishops, and leaving the Priests of God, he dares erect another Altar, and profane the verity of our Lord’s Victim by mock-sacrifices.” He supposes that they who had lapsed in time of persecution? “ ought to have their consciences purged by the Sacrifice of the Priest.” And * Every one,” says he", “that is dignified with the Priesthood, and constituted in the Clerical Ministry, ought to serve the Altar only—nor does he deserve to be named in the Priest’s prayer at the Altar of God, who would call Priests and Clergy- men from the Altar.” Andi he allows none but a Priest, attended with a Deacon, to make the oblation among the -confessors in prison; though it is clear the Priest, by going thither to officiate, exposed himself to great danger. And at another place*, “It is the great honour and glory of our episcopal office, as being Priests, who daily prepare victims, and offer Sacrifice to God, to give peace to the Martyrs.” And yet he expresses himself still with greater force, if possible’, in these memorable words, “If Jesus Christ our Lord and God be Himself the High-Priest of God the Father, and first offered Himself a Sacrifice to the Father, and commanded this to be offered for a memorial of Him; then certainly that
« g. p. 19. Ap. i. Ρ. 12. Ap.
4h. p. 16. Ap. ik, p. 12. Ap. Sce.pall, Ap: ὦ ΠῚ a fd. p. 11. Ap. 1 τῇ, p. 12. 14. Ap rerpati. Apsl 7
422 BISHOPS AND PRIESTS SACRIFICERS.
CHAP. Priest acts as the substitute of Christ, who imitates that which Christ did; and then he offers a full and true Sacrifice in the Church of God, if he so make the oblation, as he sees Christ to have done.” Origen describes the Priest™ as “ standing at the Altar, and serving the Altar.” Tertulhan 7 | speaks of a layman as making his offering", and “ commend- ing his wife’s soul to God by the Priest.” And every one knows that souls were commended to God in and by the Eucharist. At another place°®, “It is not permitted to a woman to speak in the Church, nor yet to teach, nor baptize, nor to offer, nor to challenge to herself the function of any eivil authority, or of the sacerdotal office.’ Nobody can doubt but a woman might present a lay-offering, as well as a man; therefore the offerimg here mentioned must be under- stood of making the sacerdotal oblation in the Eucharist. And he plainly intimates what were the sacerdotal functions, viz., to preach, baptize, and offer the Eucharist. It is true, at other places, he allows a layman to baptize, and even to make ~ the oblation in want of Priests ; and though some others have allowed that laymen may baptize in case of necessity, yet in the other particular of making the oblation he stands by himself; and therefore what he says is of no weight, nor | does it deserve my consideration. They who would be fur- ther informed in this pomt cannot consult a better book than Mr. Bennet’s Rights of the Clergy, chap. xxi. St. Justin Martyr, in his description of the celebration of the Eucharist, says’, “ Bread and a mixed Cup was brought or offered to him that presided over the brethren; and he taking it sends up glory and praise—and the people make a cheerful Amen.” St. Ignatius? allows of no Eucharist “ but by the Bishop, or one licensed by him.” “ And let it,” says he’, ‘‘ be your endeavour to partake all of the same holy Eu- charist ; for there is but one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, one Cup in the unity of His Blood, one Altar; as there is also one Bishop with his Presbytery and Deacons :” and he expresses himself to the same purpose at another place’,
me, p. 11, Ap. 4.1». 2.Ap. nd, p. 8. Ap. gees of. pn8: Alp, s b. p. 1. Ap. Plas Ps 2. ΔῊΝ
BISHOPS AND PRIESTS SACRIFICERS. 423
joining together the Altar and the Eucharist, the Bishop and ΒΈΟΥΙ Priests acting under him, and the Deacons attending both in this holy solemnity. When St. Clement of Rome mentions‘ * peculiar Liturgies or offices assigned to the High-Priest, and a proper station to the Priests, and ministry to the Le- vites ;” he explains himself in the words immediately follow- ing, viz., “Let every one of you, brethren, celebrate the Eucharist in his own rank or station—not going beyond the stated rule of his office or Liturgy”’ He does not specify what particular share every one had in this holy action, but clearly intimates that the Bishop, whom he calls High-Priest, was to preside in it, if present ; and in another place describes the Bishop’s office" by “ offering the gifts in an unblameable and holy manner.”
The right of Bishops and Priests only to offer and con- secrate the Eucharist is also established by councils. That of Constantinople, so often mentioned, gives this judgment* ; “Tt seemed good to Christ, that the unerring image of His own Flesh, being consecrated by the Advent of the Holy Ghost, should become a Body Divinely sanctified by means of the Priest, who makes the oblation.” Therefore the fourth alias the seventh council of Carthage, in the thirty- third canon’, requires, that Bishops or Priests, coming to a strange Church, “be invited to consecrate the oblation ;” there had been equal reason for the Deacons to have been mentioned on this occasion, if they had been thought proper officers for this purpose. By the second alias fifth council of Carthage, in the fourth canon’, the Priest is ordered to “reconcile the penitent to the Altars, with the advice of the Bishop, if the Bishop himself be absent.” By ‘ reconciling’ to the Altars, is meant, I suppose, admitting to Communion, which was the Bishop’s prerogative, if he had been present, and even in his absence he must be consulted; but the Deacon and all below him were not thought proper officers in such a case; because none of them could preside in cele- brating the Eucharist ; and in the eighth canon of the same council*, the Priest only, who “erects a new Altar and
pabape ls Ap. 1.9. y p. 51. Ap. Beep. 1. Ap. z p. 00. Ap. = peor. Ap: 1.. 29. ap. ol. Ap,
424. BISHOPS AND PRIESTS SACRIFICERS.
makes the oblation separately, is censured.” For it seems; that even those schismatics and heretics did not thmk any persons below a Priest, competent ministers of the Eucharist. The fourth canon of the synod of Gangra” censures those, who refuse to “receive the oblation, when the Priest, who performed the Liturgy, was married.” If Deacons had then presumed to perform the Eucharistic oblation, these heretics would no more have received the Eucharist from a married Deacon than a married Priest; for their quarrel was against matrimony itself, as any one may see by the first canon; for there they are described, as people that “abhorred marriage.” And the second alias third’ Apostolical Canon forbids “the Bishop and Priest” only “to offer any thing on the Altar, but what Christ commanded.” For they, who made that canon, knew no other persons, it should seem, who assumed to themselves the power of making the oblation.
It would be endless to transcribe all that is said im the old Liturgies to this purpose; it is sufficient to say, that if the reader please to peruse the Liturgies themselves, he will find no persons mentioned in them as celebrators of the Eucha- rist, inferior to Priests. I shall therefore only observe, that in the prayer for the consecration of a Bishop in the Clemen- tine Liturgy, there are these words‘; “ Grant, O God, Who art the Discerner of hearts,—that he may gather together the number of the saved, by propitiating Thy face; and that he may offer to Thee the gifts of Thy Holy Church; and that he may appease Thee, by offering constantly without blame or accusation the pure unbloody Sacrifice, the mystery of the New Testament, which Thou hast commanded by Christ, in meekness and a pure heart.” From which it is evident, that in the age when this Liturgy was compiled and used, and that was undoubtedly very early, the oblation of the Eucha- rist was esteemed a very principal part of the Bishop’s office ; but that Priests were ever allowed to celebrate, appears from the prayer drawn from the ordination of a Priest in the same Liturgy, wherein the Bishop that performs the office prays, that the elected or ordained person may® “consummate the spotless hierurgy in behalf of the people through Christ.”
SS ᾿ἶῶὸ — luc lx hlC(<i<‘(CS:S;S;téC:S
~ =a
δ p. 50. Ap. ἃ a. p. 52. Ap. © p. 48. Ap. © aa. p. 52. Ap.
BISHOPS AND PRIESTS SACRIFICERS. 425
This is what we are taught in the Constitutions, over and again. For the author having, in the name of the Apostles, called on Bishops and Priests to baptize the catechumens, and preach to the people; at the beginning of chap. 19, of the fifth book, he proceeds to exhort them to “offer the Sacrifice, concerning which Christ charged you by us, saying, ‘Offer This for My memorial’ ;” and elsewhere’, “Instead of a daily Baptism, Christ hath given us one only Baptism into His Death. Instead of one tribe, He has ordered the best of every nation to be ordained into the Priesthood; and not their bodies, but their religion and life, to be strictly ex- amined: and for bloody sacrifice, the rational, unbloody, mystic Sacrifice.” Again®, “We foreseeing the danger justly imminent on those who do such things, and the little care that is taken about the Sacrifices and Eucharists, upon the account they are offered by such as they ought not, who im- piously look upon the episcopal authority, which contains a resemblance of our Great High-Priest and King Christ Jesus, as a matter of sport ; we, I say, “had a necessity to give this admonition.” Further», “The only-begotten Christ, being the first High-Priest by nature, did not snatch this honour to Himself, but was ordained by God the Father; Who being made Man for us, and offering a spiritual Sacrifice before His Passion to His God and Father, commanded us the Apostles only to offer this.” Lastly’, “ After [Christ’s] Assumption, we [the Apostles] offering the pure unbloody Sacrifice, or- dained Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.” I proceed to shew, 2. That Deacons, and all inferior to them, were denied this privilege of offering and consecrating the Eucharist. Now the eighteenth canon of the first council of Nice* does not only mention the Bishop and Priest, as the officers that had power “to make the oblation;” but expressly declares, that “ Deacons had not this power.” The synod of Arles’, held some time bejore that of Nice, does in the fifteenth canon expressly censure the presumption of some Deacons, who usurped this power, and declare that it ought not to be done. Dr. Wise indeed observes, as the accurate Mr.
fc. p. 47. Ap. ig, p. 47. Ap. Ξ 6. p. 47. Ap. Εν. 50. Ap. bh f. p. 47. Ap. | [p. 48. Ap.]
SECT. - IV.
CHAP. i
4.26 BISHOPS AND PRIESTS SACRIFICERS.
Bingham™ had done before, that St. Cyprian has these words, “The solemnity” [of the oblation and consecration] “being finished, the Deacon began to offer the Cup to them that were present®.” ‘Offering’ here can import no mere than giving them to drink of it. For the solemnity is sup- posed to have been over, before the Deacon did thus offer the Cup; and this, I apprehend, explains the second canon of Ancyra®, which forbids the Deacon “to offer the Bread and Cup,” in case he had committed idolatry, that is, to dis- tribute them to the people. Justin Martyr? speaks of Dea- cons administering both the Body and Blood to the present, and carrying them to the absent: but then the President, that is, the Bishop, or celebrating Priest, is said first to have eucharistized them. The Constitutions* not only expressly say, that “it is not lawful for a Deacon to offer the Sacrifice ;” but in the Liturgy’ direct “the Bishop to give the oblation,”’ that is, the Bread, and “the Deacon, the Cup.” But that the Priest was permitted by the Constitutions to celebrate the Eucharist, appears from the twenty-sixth chapter of the seventh book; in the last words whereof the Bishops are ordered “to give leave to the Priests to perform the Eucha- rist;” which is the undoubted meaning of St. Ignatius, when he says®, “ That Eucharist is valid, which is performed by the Bishop, or by one whom the Bishop shall license ;” for though he do not mention the Presbyter, yet he by the common agreement of all is the only officer, to whom the Bishop can grant this commission. St. Jerome gives his opinion in those warm words of his, so well known that I need not transcribe the Latin, “ What is come to the minister of tables and widows, that he should swell, and lift up him- self against those, at whose prayers the Body and Blood of Christ is consummated?” The reader will remember, that the Bread and Wine were believed to become the Body and Blood, by the recital of the words of institution over them ; but that by the oblation, and prayers ‘ for the Holy Spirit, they
m [vol. i. p. 288. ] 4 ¢. p. 47. rane n [(“Solemnibus adimpletis Calicem rd.p oe Ap. 1. Diaconis offerre presentibus ccepit.”’— ΤῊΝ ΝΥ 2. Ap. De > Lapsis, Ἢ 182. ed. Oxon. 1682.1 ' [i. 6. for the descent of the Holy 9° p. 49. Ap. Spirit on the consecrated elements. 7
© ape. Ap. leo:
BISHOPS AND PRIESTS SACRIFICERS. 4.27
were believed to receive a more full and perfect consecration, which explain the phrase of ‘consummating the Body and Blood.” The twenty-fifth canon of Laodiczea forbids the Sub- deacon to “bless the Cup,” which may at first sight seem to intimate, that some of that rank had presumed to celebrate the Eucharist ; but it is pretty plain, that no more is meant, than distributing it. For the action forbidden to the Sub- deacon, in relation to the Cup, is most probably the same, that is forbidden him, in relation to the Bread. Now what was forbidden in relation to the Bread, in the foregoing words of the canon, is “to give it.” However this was abso- lutely prohibited, and was beyond all dispute a gross usurpa- tion. For it was not allowed to the Sub-deacon, so much as “to touch the holy vessels,” by canon the twenty-first of the same council. But the words of St. Laurence the Deacon to his Bishop Sixtus, when he was going to suffer martyrdom, seem to imply, that St. Laurence had power to consecrate the Eucharist ; for St. Laurence, in the account given us of this matter by St. Ambrose”, says, ““ Where go you so fast, O holy Priest, without your Deacon? You were never wont to offer Sacrifice without your Minister.—Did you ever find me degenerate—will you deny him a partnership of your blood” {or sufferings], “to whom you have committed the consecration of the Blood of Christ,’ [or the consecrated Blood of Christ ?] “and a partnership in consummating the mysteries ἢ Mr. Bingham supposes, as others have done, that “the consecration of the Blood” signifies no more than giving the Cup, which is a sort of “ ministerial consecration” as he expresses it’: and this must certainly be the meaning of the words; and I am apt to believe, that St. Ambrose’s words are to be rendered, “to whom you committed the consecrated Blood of Christ,’ in order to administer it to the people. All know that St. Ambrose’s diction is very singular. It is particularly observable, that he frequently puts two substan- tives, and the latter in the genitive case, instead of the sub- stantive and adjective or participle. ‘Thus you have* populo credentium for populo fideli or credenti; and* orationis mys- terium for oratio mystica, and? benedictionem verborum for
uj. p. 27. Ap. 7 6, p. 26. Ap. * Antiquities, vol. i. p. 291. κα p.2/. Ap. 15. x a. p. 26. Ap.
SECT. IV.
CHAP. Il.
That to offer the oblation was the highest privilege
of Priests.
428 BISHOPS AND PRIESTS SACRIFICERS.
verba benedictoria or benedictio verbalis; but perhaps it 15 more to the present purpose, to take notice, that he says* Panis hic est remissio peccatorum, “this Bread is the remission of sins,” which I suppose stands for Panis hic est Panis remit- tens peccata; and by the same construction he might call the Eucharistical Cup “the consecration of the Blood,” or “ the consecrated Blood.” St. Jerome seems? to call the conse- crated elements sanctificatio. ‘There is one sanctification for the master and servant,” that is, one consecrated Bread and Cup. And St. Cyprian seems to take the word in the same sense°, when he advises, that “ we who abide and live in Christ should not depart from His sanctification,” that is, the Eucharist, of which he was speaking; for the word corpore, which follows, may denote the mystical Body or Church; or ‘a sanctificatione’ and ‘ corpore’ may be a hendiadys, q. @ cor- pore sanctificato. St. Augustine? calls that material thing, whatever it was, which was given to the Catechumens, and which they called the Sacrament of the Catechumens, he calls it, I say, the “sanctification of the Catechumens ;” and says, ‘It will not give them entrance into the kingdom o heaven.” And it is observable, that the Greek Fathers often call the material Sacrament ἁγιασμὸς or ἁγίασμα, literally ‘consecration ;’ [yet it is equivalent to the Latin sacramen- tum.| Enough has been said to shew, that Deacons were not proper officers for the offermg or consecrating the holy mys- teries; and consequently, that this was not allowed to ΗΝ inferior Clergy or the laity. I add
3. That the oblation and consecration of the Eucharist} was of old esteemed the most honourable part of the Priest’s office. The Bishop had the power of ordination, by which he could impart this honourable office to others; and further, Bishops had the direction of Priests in this point of offering the Sacrifice, so that the latter were not to do it in any man- ner, time, or place, disallowed by the former; but to shew how valuable a function this of offering the Body and Blood of Christ was thought by the ancients, let me first recite the words of St. Chrysostom*; “ When [the Priest] invokes the
—_~ ee a kt TerlUcelCe,ell ee ΜΠ a ee Ὄπ π᾿ -
—- =
aa. p: 26. Ap. 1. 9. «Ὁ [p. 37. Ap.] ® d. p. 28. Ap. θὰ paloceetpe b © g. pp. ΕἸ, 12. Ap. 1. 19 ὶ
BISHOPS AND PRIESTS SACRIFICERS, 429
Holy Spirit, and is consummating the most tremendous Sacrifice, and makes his nearest approaches to the common Lord of all, what place of honour shall we assign to him ?” He makes ten Sacrifices‘; the first and principal of which is the Eucharist, the tenth and last is ‘preaching’ When St. Jerome would dash the insolence of the Deacon, who had been guilty of some misbehaviour toward him who was a Priest, he calls the Deacon “a minister of tables;” and to speak, im one word, the dignity of those of his own order, he tells you, “they consummated the Body and Blood of Christ.” When a Priest had committed a crime, which yet was not so gross as to deserve deposition, he is by the first canon of Ancyra? forbidden first to “ offer,” then to “‘preach,” and lastly to “perform any priestly function,” and yet “to retain the dignity of his seat in the presbytery ;” and which is more observable, the synod of Neoczsarea in the first canon® forbids the delinquent Priest “to make the oblation,” and yet allows him to continue in the exercise of his function, in other religious offices ; for they, who were thought fit for less honourable ministrations, might yet, in the judgment of those Fathers, be unworthy of that eximious honour of offering and consecrating the Eucharist. Thus I apprehend, I have fully proved, what I at the beginning of this section laid down, viz., that Bishops and Priests were always esteemed the proper officers for celebrating the Eucharist ; and I apprehend, there is not one single proof to the contrary in all antiquity. Ter- tullian allows the Bishop and Priest to be the proper officer, though he supposes a Deacon or layman may do it in case of necessity. And he is singular in this opinion ; that, even in want of a Priest, another person may perform the oblation. However I know no other ancient writer of the same opinion with Tertullian; for the fable of Petronilla has been abun- dantly confuted by Mr. Dodwell', and by Mr. Bennet, in his Rights of the Clergy, ch. xxi. p. 288, &c.*; and I conceive, that I have no occasion to prove this from Scripture, as I
fg. p. 38. Ap. Peter, has been erroneously supposed 5 p. 49. Ap. to have offered the Eucharist, on the hp. 49. Ap. authority of Baronius; whereas he only i De Jure Laicorum Sacerdotali, says, “ Mox ut Christi Sacramentum . 326. accepit, emisit spiritum.’’—Vid. Bar.
k (St. Petronilla, the daughter of St. in Maii 31.]
SECT. Ἐνς
430 BISHOPS AND PRIESTS SACRIFICERS.
CH - Ρ. have the other points; because the adversaries, with whom I ——*_ am concerned, will readily grant, that if the Eucharist be a Sacrifice, and never allowed to be offered by any other but Bishops and Priests in the primitive Church, this is suffi- cient to shew that it ought to be offered by none others now. I shall only therefore desire my reader to reflect on the words of the Apostolical Constitutions, which I lately cited’, viz., that Jesus Christ “ordered us [the Apostles] only to offer this.” For though I am not persuaded, that the Apostles were really the authors of these Constitutions ; yet the Scripture clearly asserts, that this commission was given to the Apo- stles only; and the Church has always so understood it, that none but their successors, or Priests authorized by them, should make this oblation. No objec- 1 cannot think it any just objection against the Priest- thin that hood of Christian pastors, or their right to Sacrifice, that Bishopsand they are nowhere in the New Testament distinguished by mou coed the title of “Iepets, or any equivalent name. For the Hebrew in Scrip- Word 173 does no more denote ‘a Sacrifice’ by its original are import, than the Greek words, ’AmécToNos, ᾿Επίσκοπος, or IIpecBitepos; and the same may truly be said of the title of ‘Magi,’ which the Persians gave their sacrificers; and of Pon- tifex, Flamen, &c., which were the names that the Romans gave to their sacrificing officers. And though it be granted, that the Evangelical officers have no compellation given them in the New Testament, which does in strictness imply Sacri- fice to be their proper function; yet St. Clement of Rome speaks of the three orders of the Church under the character of Sacrificing officers, as High-Priests, Priests, and Levites ; and even hints the Sacrifice, which was offered by them, when he bids them in the next breath, “celebrate the Eu- charist every one in his own order ;” and supposes, that in the Eucharist we offer the ‘ perpetual Sacrifice,’ ‘ vows,’ and ‘offerings for sin.’ Nor can I see any shadow of reason, why St. Ignatius’s καλοὶ ἱερεῖς should not be understood of Gospel- Priests™. The words stand thus, “ Priests (ἱερεῖς, sacrificing Priests) “are honourable; but the High-Priest is somewhat more excellent; to whom alone the holy of holies is in- trusted; who is alone intrusted with the secrets of God; he
Ip. 47. Ap. m See Ignatii ad Philadelph., cap. 9,
BISHOPS AND PRIESTS SACRIFICERS,. 431
alone is a door to the Father ;” the interpolator so under- stood it, for he explains ‘ Priests’ by ‘ Ministers of the Word,’ the very title given to Evangelical officers ; but since the thing itself, I mean the Sacrifice, and the oblators, are so clearly to be found in Scripture, I am sure the ingenuous part of our adversaries will think it below men and Christians to strive about words and names; though, as for myself, I look upon the testimony of St. Clement to be in effect the testi- mony of the two Apostles, from whom he received his in- structions in Christianity and in the liturgy of the Sacra- ments and all episcopal offices; and upon the language of St. Ignatius, as the way of expression, which he had learned from St. John the beloved Apostle, whose disciple he was ; and I am reasonably well assured, that they will bear us out in giving the title of Sacrificers to Bishops and Priests. I shall only make one short reflection upon the truth, which I have now been proving, namely, that this sole power of offering the Eucharist and administering it, being an- nexed to the episcopal dignity, and to the Presbyterate under the Bishops, is the foundation of all spiritual authority ; for they that have the sole power of consecrating and giving the Eucharist, have the sole power οἵ withholding it. This is originally in the Bishops, and in Priests subordinately only ; for it must be allowed, that by the commission of Christ Jesus and by the practice of the primitive Church the Priests have only a secondary and dependent authority in administering Sacraments, and are therefore under the check and control of the Bishops, as the Prophets were under that of the Apostles; as appears by the regulations made by St. Paul in relation to the Prophets at Corinth, in his first Epistle (ch. xiv.) to the Christians in that city. And as Bishops are, under Christ, the sole source and origin of all ecclesiastical authority strictly so called; so certainly it would well become them, even at the peril of their lives, to be the most zealous and resolute patrons of it; and to screen their Priests from the fury of such Erastian or Athe- istical demagogues, as would by virtue of civil sanctions violate and break through the fences of primitive Apostolical provisions ; and to this purpose I cannot but wish, that the following words of St. Chrysostom were written in letters of
SECT. ΤΥ.
uke i. 2.
This power in Bishops and Priests, the only foundation of Christian discipline.
CHAP. Il.
The only essential rites, prayer and praise.
Ley. ii. 1— 4; xxiv. 7.
432 BISHOPS AND PRIESTS SACRIFICERS.
gold over the throne of every Bishop in Christendom. He is speaking to his Priests, and thus he expresses himself"; “ If any one come unworthily, though he be a general, or lieu- tenant, nay, though he wears the imperial diadem, stop him; _ you have more power than he in this respect. If you dare ~ not do it yourself, bring him to me; I will not permit such — things to be done. I will spend my own blood, rather — than profuse such tremendous Blood against right and | reason.” 7 I have shewed, ch. I. sect. IV. that no rites are necessary to Sacrifice, but only the action or actions, by which the oblation is made. And I have there and elsewhere observed, that the oblatory actions under the old Law were, sprinkling ~ the blood, and burning the whole or some part of the ma- terial oblation. Now I shall shew, that the only necessary — rites to be observed in offering the Christian Sacrifice, after the Priest has accepted and presented the oblation at the Altar (which is absolutely necessary in all proper Sacrifices), — are the prayers and praises of the Eucharistic Liturgy. And 4 I must further observe to my reader, that the Eucharist was _ especially prefigured by the Mincha and the shew-bread ; and both these last were offered by burning frankincense on ~ the Altar. And this was the very rite, by which the meal- — or bread-offering was presented to God by the priest. As — therefore blood, fire, and incense were the mediums, by which the ancient sacrifices were offered; so are prayer and praise the mediums, by which the Christian Sacrifice is made to ascend to heaven, and rendered a πον, a culminating sacri- fice, for so the Israelites called their burnt-offering. And I apprehend, that the action of prayer and praise are the only rites whereby the Eucharist is offered to God. I do not deny but that other rites may be used, but I affirm these are the only essential ones; and that this was the opinion of the ancients, I shall shew from what now follows. St. Chrysostom speaking of the prophecy of Malachi, ch. i. 10, 11, says°, “ How brightly and illustriously he interprets the mys- tical Table, the unbloody Sacrifice ;” this he supposes to be Malachi’s Mincha, “and he calls prayer the incense offered with the Sacrifice.” St. Jerome alludes to the rite of making 5 w. p. 40, Ap. ο f. p. 38. Ap.
BISHOPS AND PRIESTS SACRIFICERS. 433
the oblation by sprinkling the blood and burning incense both at once, when he says?, “ Let them know, that spiritual Sacrifices are to succeed the carnal victims, and not the blood of goats, but incense, that is, prayers of the saints are to be offered to God—and that in every place an oblation is to be offered, not an impure one, as among the people of Israel, but a clean one, as in the ceremonies of the Chris- tians.” And “ Who beside our Saviour,” says Eusebius}, “has by tradition instructed his votaries to offer unbloody rational Sacrifices by prayer?’ The last words shew, that Prayer was by Eusebius thought the medium, by which the material (and which he therefore calls unbloody) Sacrifice was offered. And again’, “ We offer the Sacrifice of praise, the Divine and venerable Sacrifice, with a decorous sanctity to God over all. We sacrifice in a new manner, according to the New Testament. And we offer the prophetic incense, presenting to Him in every place the well-savoured incense of a most virtuous theology, by prayers made to Him.” He supposes, that both the Mincha and the incense are to be presented by prayer; the Mincha is clearly the matter of the Eucharist, for I have already shewed that a Sacrifice of praise is properly a material oblation ; the incense he sup- poses to be pious and holy affections, which are to be offered to God both with the Mincha and the prayer, which is still the medium with which the whole Sacrifice is offered. Ter- tullian says‘, “ We sacrifice to God with pure prayer.” By ‘ sacrificmg’ is to be understood, as at other places, offering a material oblation; and when he says, this was done “ by pure prayer,” he means without blood or incense; so he ex- plains himself in the next words, “for God does not want a perfume or the blood of any creature ;” for neither the blood nor the incense were the sacrifice strictly speaking ; but the whole animal or Mincha. St. Irenzus has been pro- duced already, asserting that the Mincha was the prefigura- tion of the material Eucharist. And at another place he says, that “incense is the prayer of holy men.” And from hence we may certainly know what Tertullian means, when"
JOHNSON. Ε f
SECT. lV.
434 THE PEOPLE’S SHARE
CHAP. he mentions “the prayers of the Sacrifices,’ that is, the = prayers by which the Eucharistical Bread and Wine were presented to God as the memorials of Christ’s Body and Blood. If he had thought prayer the sacrifice, he would rather have said “ the sacrifices of prayers.” Before I close this section, I shall only observe, what share the people of old had in the oblatory service. 1. They furnished the Bread and Wine as the material Sacrifice; and they added whatever else was necessary for the subsistence of all that attended the Altar. 2. They joined in the devotions offered by the Priest. 8. They did likewise eat and drink a portion of the Sa- crifice. People 1. I need not labour in the first point, it bemg a thing so aera commonly known and confessed on all sides. I will there- rial obla- fore only further observe, that what they thus offered was
tions, which ς Ἁ . Z were some- Called a vow or prayer; that is, in truth, a material thing
timescalled ither actually offered on the Altar, or intended for that use by the proprietor, in order to render his prayers the more successful; which is, I think, the common signification of votum, and εὐχὴ, as used by the LXX in the translation of the Pentateuch. Now St. Augustine says*, “ Whatever is offered to God is vowed, especially the oblation of the Altar.” Origen, in his eleventh Homily on Leviticus, speaks of these vows’, and supposes a man, in imbarning his corn or bar-
relling his wine, resolves to offer such a portion of it to the Church ; “If,” says he, “afterwards he apply part of what he —
has vowed to his own use, he does not take of his own goods, but prophanes the holy things of God.” And this gives hght to the words of Optatus, who says’, “that the vows of the people and members of Christ are borne by the Altar.” Voigtus* would by the vota populi have us understand the verbal devotions of the people only; but I cannot conceive how bare words can be laid upon an Altar: but every one knows how vows or oblations joined with prayer, and there-
fore called Prayer, may be thus deposited. And I believe ~ Origen and St. Augustine are much better commentators on —
Optatus, than the learned Voigtus. When Optatus imme-
x b. p. 31. Ap. Z a, p. 22. Ap. Σ fol. 83. * De Altarib., cap. viii. sect. 5.
Bh nto
"δὸς Ee ae
|
IN THE SACRIFICE. 435
diately adds “the members of Christ,’ he must mean the sEcT. material oblation ; though whether he speak of this oblation, ὃ as representing His natural members or His political mem- bers, is not worth disputing. And this explains St. Clement
of Rome, when he speaks of εὐχαὶ, vows, immediately after
“the continual Sacrifices.”
I further observe, that Origen calls these vows “ the holy Which by things of the Lord,’ even while they remained in the pos- oie session of the proprietor ; which confirms the observation I ae made in my subsection to sect. I. of this chapter, that every thing becomes holy by being dedicated to God, according to the degree by which it has been so dedicated: thus a beast, by being vowed to the Lord, became holy; yet no one can Lev. xxvii, doubt but it acquired a greater degree of consecration, by pe Na being solemnly offered on the altar. St. Cyprian speaking to a wealthy lady, who was very close-handed, says”, “‘ You are rich, and can you think you celebrate the [Sacrifice] of the Lord, who have no regard to the Corban, who come into the Church without a Sacrifice, who take part of the Sacri- fice which a poor person offered?” Here, what the private Christian brought to Church for the provision of the Altar is called a ‘Sacrifice,’ before any act of the Priest had been passed upon it; so the animal brought to the temple is fre- queutly called a ‘ sacrifice,’ while under the hands of the lay- votary. But no judicious person will from thence conclude, that both the one and the other did not acquire a much greater degree of holiness, or was not more perfectly con- secrated, by the more solemn oblation performed by the Priest. The truth is, the people offered immediately to the Priest, and by the Priest to God. So Origen teaches us*, “Whatever is given to the Priest is offered to God ;” and adds, “the first-fruits of every thing must be offered to God ; that is, to the Priests.” And it is clearly in this sense, that the rich lady might have offered a Sacrifice, and eaten of it; and is reprehended by St. Cyprian for not doing so, In any other sense a woman could not offer a material Sacrifice ; as we have heard before from Tertullian.
It is farther to be observed, that these offerings were free ; Those offer-
ings were
the people were under no constraint, but what proceeded free,
bh, p. 12. Ap. ¢ d.p. 10. Ap. Ff2
CHAP.
Phil. iy, 18.
Acts xxiv. 17.
486 THE PEOPLE’S SHARE
from conscience and a sense of duty. There are canons in the ancient Church for prohibiting Priests and Bishops from accepting oblations from vicious and unpeaceable persons® and from such as did not actually communicate®, but none to oblige the people to any quota in their altar-oblations. The words of Tertullian are remarkable on this occasion‘, “ Every one deposits a moderate allowance once a month, if he be willing, if he be able; for no man is compelled, but gives of his free will; and this is a stock for pious uses.” St. Irenzeus is very large on this head ; he supposes our Saviour in insti- tuting the Eucharist® “did give a charge to men to offer the first-fruits of His creatures.” He says}, “ Men ought to offer frequently and without ceasing.” He citesi where St. Paul says, “I am full with those things, which were’ received by Epaphroditus, which were sent by you for an odour of a sweet savour, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God.” For Irenzus seems to suppose, that what St. Paul received was some considerable part of what the people had offered at the Altar. And the truth is, when St. Paul speaks of bringing “alms and oblations” from other Churches to his countrymen at Jerusalem, we cannot in reason understand him otherwise than speaking of the oblations made at the Eucharist for this purpose ; for there is no proof, that send- ing the Eucharistical symbols themselves did yet prevail. The words of Ireneus immediately going before-those last cited are, “ Because the Church offers with simplicity,” that is, liberally, “her gift is esteemed pure in the sight of God; as Paul also says to the Philippians, ‘I am full”” &e. He was certainly speaking of offering at the Eucharist, and produces these words as a proof, that these oblations were and ought to be large. The following words are, “It becomes us to make an oblation to God—offering the first-fruits of His creatures; this oblation the Church, which alone is pure, offers to the Creator.” And he does more fully express the largeness of their offerings, by observing, “the Jews gave the tenth, Christians offered all they had to the Lord’s use.”
4 See Can. 93, 94, of the fourth aepe (ates alias seventh Council of Carthage, p. gc. p. 4. Ap. 1. 17. 51. Ap. h f, p. 5. Ap.
© See 28th Canon of the Council of τ, ἢ:
Eliberis, in Appendix, p. 48.
IN THE SACRIFICE. 437
And it is just before this he says*, that “not sacrifice in SECT. general is rejected, but the species of it is altered; for offer- = Ings are now made, not by servants, but by sons ;”’ that is, not
by Jews, who were tied down to a beast of some particular
sort and sex and age, but by Christians, whom God treats more like children than servants; and so leaves them more
at discretion; and who therefore make the most ample re- turns they can to This bountiful indulgent Father. Dr. Hancock asks Dr. Hickes, how the “ species or kind of sacri-
fices are changed, when bread and wine were offered under
the Law, and Bread and Wine are offered under the Gospel!.”
But the Doctor takes it for granted, that “ species” here is taken in the logical sense for one particular sort of sacrifice coming under a genus. But it is more probable, that ‘ species’
is the rendition of the Greek ἰδέα, as we are sure it 155, And certainly idea or species there signifies number and bulk ;
for he complains of the heretics for making the Gospels more or less than four, and thereby “ ἀθετοῦντες τὴν ἰδέαν
Tov εὐαγγελίου, quite destroying the certain bulk, com- pages, or ‘volume’ of the Gospel. Thus the idea of the old sacrifices is changed ; for every Mincha was to be of a just measure, the tenth part of an ephah, that is, a little more Lev. v. 11; than half a gallon; and the particular conditions of every sens 5. animal sacrifice were precisely determined: whereas, under
the Gospel, men were not stinted, as they had been under
the Law; and used their freedom like ingenuous children.
For Irenzus tells us, that instead of a tenth they were ready
to offer all. And whether the original word were ἰδέα or εἶδος, St. Irenzeus might mean that the “ outward appear- ance” of the Sacrifice was much changed; for it was offered without blood, fire, or smoke, the most essential ingredients
of a Levitical sacrifice; but I am the more inclined to think
that ἰδέα was the word used by Ireneus, because it is most probable, he used εἶδος in the former part of the sentence ;
and that the translator turned that word by ‘genus.’ And
St. Irenzeus would never say, the εἶδος of sacrifice is not rejected, but, the εἶδος is changed. Therefore I adhere to
the first sense ; and it is to be observed, that of these lay-
k ce, p. 5. Ap. 1. 9. m Lib. iii. cap. 11. versus finem [p. | [p. 134.] 134.]
CHAP. Il.
People joined in with the prayers and praises pro- nounced by the priest. Lev. iv.
13, 14.
Ley. xxiii. 1. 8. 16.
Deut.xii.27.
438 THE PEOPLE’S SHARE
oblations those words of the same writer are to be under- stood, viz. “the Sacrifices do not sanctify the man, but the conscience of him that offers being pure sanctifies the gift ;” not that he denies that the Eucharist has a sanctifying power to such as duly receive it, for he says, it “consists of two things, an earthly, and heavenly ;” but that the mere Bread and Wine, or rather materials offered at the Altar, have no sanctifying power; nor can the sanctifying power in the Eu- charist produce good effects on him that does not come with a good conscience. And I cannot but understand St. Bar- nabas of these voluntary oblations in those words", where having spoken of the Jewish institutions he says, Hee ergo vacua fecit, ut nova Lex Jesu Christi, que sine jugo necessi- tatis est, humanam habeat oblationem. By the “ human obla- tion” I understand one offered with freedom, and without any law determining the properties and value of it ; for the holy man speaks of an oblation quite contrary to those of the Jewish Law. The character he gives of the Jewish sacrifices is, that they carry “a yoke of necessity” along with them ; and therefore the oblation contrary to these must be such a one as proceeds from choice and free will; and such is a truly human oblation ; for what is voluntary is most agree- able to the nature of men.
2. A second part which the people bore in the sacrifices was in joining in those prayers and praises that were on this occasion offered ; and as the whole people of the Jews are on some occasions said to offer bloody sacrifices, as “when the whole congregation had sinned they were to offer a young bullock for their sin.” And as God says to the whole Body of the children of Israel, “ Ye shall offer an offering by fire, and a new meat-offering.” Nay, it is said to the people of Israel, “ Thou shalt offer thy burnt-offerings, the flesh and the blood upon Mine altar.” So we are not at all to wonder that the whole Christian Church are said to offer the Eucha- rist ; for as in the former case the concurrence of the people in their wishes and hearty desires did not in the least super- sede the necessity of the Priest’s performing his office, so neither in the latter is it to be supposed, that the devo- tions of the people do at all impair or intrench upon the
n cap. il.
IN THE SACRIFICE. 439
prerogative of the Christian Bishop or Priest, in performing SECT. the sacerdotal oblation. The priest in the Jewish sacrifice ἘΣ sprinkled the blood, and laid that part of the sacrifice which was to be burnt on the fire that was upon the altar, with his own hands. The Christian celebrator presents all the oblations of the people on the Altar, and separates a proper portion of the Bread and Wine, and solemnly offers it to God as a memorial of Christ’s Death, and presides in the prayers and praises, and in the whole sacred action ; and I cannot see in what respect the Levitical priest was a more proper oblator than the Christian, if this latter perform his part in that manner that the primitive Priests and Bishops did. And the concurrence of the people in their earnest prayers for the validity and good success of the Sacrifice does no more affect us, than it did the sons of Aaron, as to the character of bemg sacrificing officers. The burning incense was an office as peculiar to the Jewish priests as offering bloody sacrifices ; and while the priest burned the incense, we are told that the Luke i. 10. people prayed. And the priest could not preside in this prayer; for the people were “ without” in their own apart- ment, the priest in the sanctuary where the altar of incense stood; which is a demonstration that the prayers sent up by the people, during the time that any material oblation is made, are no infrmgement on the oblatory power of the Priest, especially when the Priest presides in those prayers, as the Christian Priests ever did. In a word, the Priest in both cases was ever esteemed the principal in making the obla- tion; but the people were likewise allowed to be accessories in the primitive Church. The Priests were the proper obla- tors; the people were said to offer by them; and therefore the Eucharist is often styled “the oblation of the Church.” Theodoret expresses this admirably well°, “Jesus Christ, Who sprang from Judah, still sacrifices; not by offering any thing Himself, but by being styled the Head of them that do. For He calls the Church His Body—and the Church offers the symbols of His Body and Blood.” St. Augustine? calls the Eucharist “the Sacrifice of the Church;”’ and further says “ She herself is offered in the Sacrifice which she offers ;” for the Bread and Wine are symbols of the political Body of od. p. 45. Ap. 1. 10. P A. p. 35. Ap.
440 THE PEOPLE'S SHARE
CHAP. Christ (the Church) as well as of the natural. The Aposto-
— lical Constitutions? direct laymen “to offer the antitypes of
Christ’s Body and Blood.” And it were easy to add more
authorities, if I thought I were like to meet with any readers
hard of belief in this point. I shall therefore only add the
testimony of Irenzus"; who, speaking of the Sacrifice enjoined
by Christ in the institution, adds, that “this is the oblation
of the New Testament, which the Church, receiving from the Apostles, offers throughout the world.”
It is further to be observed on this head, that the ancient
Liturgies were composed in such a tongue as the people,
among whom they were to be used, best understood; and
therefore in the East, mostly in Greek, in the West and
Africa, in Latin; and Justin Martyr assures us‘ that the
people joined in the Eucharistical prayers and praises in his
time, by sounding out a cheerful Amen at the conclusion of
1Cor.xiv. them. And St. Paul reprehends the innovating guides at
Corinth for blessing and giving thanks or celebrating the
Eucharist in an “unknown tongue,’ or rather in “the
tongue,” as it is in the original, that is, the Hebrew, which
he so calls by way of eminence; for it seems that these in-
truders, who valued themselves much on the account of their
being born and bred in the country of Judzea, and therefore
2Cor. xi.22, called themselves Hebrews, had turned the Liturgy, which
St. Paul left with his Prophets at Corinth, into the holy
tongue, to shew their skill in that language. The Apostle
therefore owns that these innovators did Eucharistize or per-
form the holy action well; but the unlearned communicant
1 Cor. xiv. was not “edified,” that is, he could not join in and concur
a with that part of the congregation, and the celebrator, who
understood the Hebrew ; the whole Body could not be ce-
mented together in putting up their devotions with one heart
and consent, and in token thereof answer Amen. The Apo-
stle’s argument, however you modify it, turns entirely upon
this supposition, that it is necessary that the people be edified,
or united with the celebrator and with one another, in put-
ting up the very same wishes and desires, prayers and praises;
and that in order to this the oblation and consecration be
made in a tongue understood by the congregation. And I
9 bb. p. 47. Ap. τ, pe Api 22. = Aa pepe
IN THE SACRIFICE. 44)
tremble to think what account the governing part of the Church of Rome have to give to God for depriving the people under them of that privilege, which is a part of their birth- right; and for so engrossing the oblation and consecration to the Priest, that the most sensible of their people, who do not understand Latin, cannot without an implicit faith say Amen at the Eucharistical solemnity: and yet I think they are equally to blame, if not more, in denying their people
3. The last share that they have in the material Sacrifice, and which seems the greatest of all, that is, their eating and drinking of the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ ; for it is too well known, that the Church of Rome does not per- mit the people to taste of the Eucharistical Cup; though in many places, I am assured, they give the people unconsecrated wine to drink, and if I am not misinformed, do it in such a manner that the people are persuaded that they receive the very Blood of their Redeemer ; which, if true, I must call not a pious but a most impious fraud. But the rnght of the people to partake of the Sacrifice falls in with
CHAP. II. SECT. V.
That the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is rightly consumed, by being solemnly eaten and drunk by the Priest, Clergy, and
people.
THERE is no occasion for me now to prove either that the Eucharist is a Sacrifice, or that it is to be consumed by man- ducation ; the first I have sufficiently proved already, the last is what all will grant, except the Divines of the Church of Rome, who make the consumption of the Sacrifice consist in the miraculous change, as I suppose, according to Bellar- mine’s notion of it expressed in his definition in the introduc- tion to this discourse ; and will not allow the people or non- celebrating Clergy to partake of the Cup. I have already shewed' that much the greatest part of the Jewish sacrifices was consumed in this manner; indeed all, except the whole
t chap. i. sect. 5.
SECT. Le
CHAP. Il.
Eucharistic Sacrifice most hon- ourably consumed.
442 THE CHRISTIAN SACRIFICE
burnt-offerings and sacrifices for sin, the bodies of which were’ burnt without the camp, were consumed by eating; for the fat, kidneys, and rump of the common sacrifice for sin and trespass-offering and the peace-offerings are scarce worth mentioning; and the whole carcases of these sacrifices were to be eaten by the priests or people; as likewise all the first- born, and the vows, and passovers. Now these sacrifices, which were ordered to be consumed by manducation, were, beyond all question, the very great majority of the Jewish sacrifices, both in bulk and number; and therefore under the Law it must be owned, that either manducation was a proper way of consumption, or that the greatest part of their sacri- fices were not rightly consumed.
It is true that what was burnt in the fire on the altar was more directly offered to God, because this action of burning was then a rite of oblation; but from hence the grosser part of the Jews were apt to conclude, that God stood in need of sacrifice, and was refreshed with the nidor or steam of the altar, as we may learn from the fiftieth Psalm. Therefore God, to take off this objection against sacrifice, has com- manded it to be consumed, as His own sacrifice the Passover was, wholly by manducation ; and thereby gives us a demon- stration of that, which I will express in the words of St. Treneus?, viz., “ God wants not the oblations of men, but for the sake of those who make them.”
And certainly this modus of consuming the Sacrifice was not only intended for the removing of that grand objection against consumption by fire, namely, that it gave occasion to men to think that the indigence of the Deity was by that means supplied ; but likewise for the honour of the Sacrifice itself. For it is not easy to imagine how any creature can be disposed of in a more honourable manner than by being consumed in an act of the most solemn devotion, as the Eucharistical symbols are by the institution of Christ Jesus. The Jewish sacrifices were in part to be reduced to ashes, and the remainder to be eaten in such a place, and by such persons, and with such circumstances, as God had appointed; but it does not appear that they who eat them were obliged, during that action, to employ their minds in the service of
wc. p. 40
CONSUMED BY MANDUCATION. 443
God; only in the Passover they were to call to mind their deliverance from the Egyptian bondage. side, the manducation of the Christian Sacrifice is to be per- formed, as the most solemn and religious action that private Christians can do in their own persons. For the oblation and consecration have been shewed to be the acts of the Priest, in which the people are only accessories. It is true indeed, the consequence of this consumption by manducation is not for the honour of the Sacrifice, according to the notion of Origen ; for he says, εἰς ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκβάλλεται. But Justin Martyr* asserts that the Sacramental Body and Blood “are by a change turned into the nutriment of our flesh and blood ;” and Irenzeus, that “our bodies are thereby increased and nourished, and have a principle of a happy resurrection conveyed to them’.” And it is evident that St. Augustine’ and St. Chrysostom* were of the same opinion, and so was
Cyril of Jerusalem”.
SECT.
But on the other —————
That the receiving of the Bread and Wine in the Commu- Eucharist
nion is the consumption of a Sacrifice, or that the Eucharist ἐν
tuly a ast on a
is a feast upon a Sacrifice, has been asserted by several learned S@ctce-
men in the last, and by some in this age.
x a. p. 2, 3. Ap. 1. 19.
Y It is true, that St. Ireneus and Justin Martyr do not directly deny that the symbols are cast into the draught; but they do it by conse- quence, when they say that they are converted into the nutriment of our bodies. And Cyril of Jerusalem and St. Chrysostom do in words at length deny it, in the places here referred to. St. Chrysostom is not content to say, that it is not cast into the draught; but explains his opinion by the similitude of wax cast into the fire, and wholly becoming the fuel of that fire, so that nothing of it remains. St. Augus- tine, in the place above cited, makes this difference between common food (though sanctified by the word of God and prayer) and the Eucharist, that the former is cast into the draught; which is more than an intimation that the latter is not.
z What St. Augustine here says con- cerning the Sacrament of catechumens has given occasion of dispute to learned men. Some will have it, that it was nothing but salt; others, that it was the bread offered by the laity on the
The most learned
Altar, and which had perbaps some prayers said over it, but was not con- secrated or offered as the Body of Christ; and I must confess I incline to this latter opinion. It is true, the fifth canon of the third alias the sixth Council of Carthage, A.D. 397, pro- hibits any Sacrament to be given to the catechumens, but that of salt; but this supposes that some other had been given; otherwise what occasion had there been for suchacanon? And we are not to conclude, that because this canon forbids any other Sacrament to be given, that therefore it was not given. All laws do not meet with the approba- tion or compliance of those for whom they are made. It appears that the African Bishops did not make such an account of this canon as to put it into their Code; and therefore it is not im- probable, that this custom of giving bread to the catechumens, under the name of a Sacrament in a more loose sense, did still prevail when St. Augus- tine wrote this.
zz Q. p. 37. Ap.
2 9. p. 39. Ap.
Sh. Ὁ.:10, Ψ Ὁ:
444, THE CHRISTIAN SACRIFICE
CHAP. Dr. Cudworth, about forty or fifty years ago, published this —— notion as a discovery of his own; and yet in that very book which he wrote on this subject, he denies the Eucharist to be a Sacrifice. And so, it seems, Christians feast upon something that is a Sacrifice, but not offered. For this and other rea- sons I think his book, which he calls a Discourse concerning the True Notion of the Lord’s Supper, very much misnamed. This notion of Dr. Cudworth’s seems much of a piece with that conceit of the Calvinists, that we receive the natural Body of Christ in the Eucharist ; though it be as far distant from us at the same time, as heaven is from the earth. Dr. Hancock seems very sensible of this absurdity ; he is aware, that if the Communion be a feast on a Sacrifice, then what is there eaten and drunk must of consequence be a Sacrifice. Dr. Wise could not see this consequence, though the other had shewed it him, in his answer to Dr. Hickes*. Dr. Han- cock justly supposes that the Eucharist cannot be a true Sacrifice, nor by consequence the Communion a true feast upon a Sacrifice, except “what is eaten and drunk be offered up just before ;” and therefore he is only mistaken in deny- ing that it is so offered: but his second, Dr. Wise, will not allow that it is so offered; and yet approves Dr. Cudworth’s notion, that the Eucharist is a feast on a Sacrifice. Now 1 shall further observe, that the ancients did sometimes speak of receiving the Sacrament, as of a banquet upon what had been first offered to God. Thus St. Augustine speaks of “ the Altar* from whence that Sacrifice is dispensed, whereby the hand-writing against us is blotted out,” clearly hinting the distribution of the holy symbols ; and when Gregory Nyssen tells us® that “the sacrificed sheep cannot be eaten unless the slaughter precede the manducation,” and “ that the body of the sacrifice could not be eaten while it was alive,” and accommodates this to the Eucharist, he must mean the same thing. St. Basil spake with the same view, when reflecting upon that prohibition in the Law against eating of the sacri- fice, while men were under any legal uncleanness. He said’, “as much as our Saviour was greater than the temple, so much more heinous is it and more horrid, to dare touch the
ppp: 70 13 εἰ p. 35. ἌΡ}. ἘΠ᾿ da. p. 31. Ap. f b. p. 23. Ap.
CONSUMED BY MANDUCATION. 445
Body of Christ while we are under any pollution, than to sEcT. touch rams and bulls” offered in sacrifice. St. Cyprian speaks of the feast upon the Paschal sacrifice, when he applies to the Eucharist those words®, “‘ In one house shall it Exod. xii. be eaten; ye shall not carry any of the flesh out of doors :’
the Flesh of Christ, and the Holy [thing or Sacrifice] of the
Lord cannot be carried out of doors; nor is there any other
house to believers than that one house, the Church.” He
does not mean the material fabric, but the Body of Catholic Christians, who alone enjoy the true Eucharist, according to
the doctrine of St. Cyprian and the Divines of that age.
And when Tertullian” calls the Body of Christ in the Sacra-
ment “the Holy of the Lord,” as St. Cyprian does in the
words now cited; and when Dionysius of Alexandria, in his
second canoni, and others call it “the most Holy,” they do
beyond all doubt allude to those places in the Levitical Law,
where that part of the sacrifice of peace-offerings and sin- offerings, which was to be eaten by the priests or the people,
are called “ the holy,” or “ most holy of the Lord.” Tertul- Lev. xix.8; lian speaks more plainly still, when he calls‘ receiving the eee Sacrament participatio Sacrificii, “the participation of the ey poe, Sacrifice :” by which he can mean nothing but taking into ration for the hands the holy symbols, and carrying them home; for he πτήσει ὅς advises the lay-Christian, that was resolved to keep his ation ae fast, to take the Sacrifice, and reserve it to be eaten some tion of it. other time, rather than not to assist at the Altar while the oblation was made. He cannot mean receiving the natural
Body of Christ by faith, for That Body cannot be reserved ;
nor does a man break his fast by eating the Body of Christ spiritually, in the sense of our adversaries. And as I look
upon this to be as undeniable a proof of the material Sacrifice
as any in antiquity, as being a Sacrifice distinguished from
the prayers that were used on that occasion, a Sacrifice made
on an Altar, a Sacrifice that a man could not take without breaking his fast, a Sacrifice that a man might take and not
eat presently but keep by him to be eaten hereafter, a Sacri-
fice which is in the same sentence called “the Body of our
Lord ;” so the receiving of it in order to be eaten, is ex-
= b. p. 11. Ap.
i p. 48. Ap. h bp. p. 7. Ap. αὐ}
8. Ap.
CHAP. Il.
Therefore called the Bread of God.
Ley.xxi.22.
This a peculiar honour to the Chris- tian laity.
44.6 THE CHRISTIAN SACRIFICE
pressly called “the participation of the Sacrifice.’ Dr. Han- cock did not “think it worth while to look for this citation!.” He had enough of it, as it stood in the margin of Dr. Hickes’s book; and whereas Dr. Hancock says that Ter- tullian calls it a Sacrifice only “in a general sense ;” I am bold to say, that he speaks of it as a Sacrifice in that very sense for which Dr. Hickes contends. Origen™ makes this a characteristic difference between the Eucharistics offered to demons by Celsus and his party, and the Eucharistic by which Christians appeased God, viz. that the first were given or wholly burnt in the fire to those demons ; but the Chris- tians “eat those loaves that were offered to God.”
And when St. Ignatius reckons it a dangerous thing” to be deprived of “ the Bread of God,” as it is certain that by that phrase he means the Eucharist ; so it is as plain, that he calls it “the Bread of God,” as typified by that part of the Levi- tical sacrifices, which was reserved to be eaten by the priests and their families : for nothing 15 distinguished by that title in Scripture but either the portion burnt in the fire in the act of oblation, or what was reserved for the priest’s use. When therefore St. Ignatius calls the Eucharist the ‘ Bread of God,” as he must mean some material oblation ; for nothing else was ever called ‘“‘the Bread of God :” so, since he cannot mean it of the Eucharist as a sacrifice or oblatien by fire, it must of consequence be understood of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, which is not consumed either in whole or part by oblation, but as wholly reserved to be consumed by mandu- cation. And this brmgs me
To reflect on the singular and honourable mark of distine- tion, by which God has dignified the Christian people above and beyond His old peculium, the Jews; and that is, that whereas the Christian Church has but One Sacrifice, instead of that multitude and variety of sacrifices under the Law, and whereas the Jewish laity were not permitted to eat of any other sacrifices but the peace-offerings ; the rest being either wholly burnt in the fire, or reserved to be eaten by the priests and their families: on the other side, now under the Gospel our One Sacrifice is wholly to be consumed by Priest, —
1 See his Answer to Dr. Hickes, p. male 9: Ὁ. 209. 5 Ὁ ps ᾿ς Ἀν}
~
CONSUMED BY MANDUCATION. 447
Clergy, and people jointly; and this I take to be a most signal mark of favour to the Christian laity, that they are admitted to a participation of the Sacrifice equally with the Priests themselves. St. Chrysostom magnifies this privilege of Christians in this respect, when he says®, “There is a time, when the Priest differs not from his votary, as when we are to enjoy the holy mysteries; for we are all equally digni- fied with them; there is one Body, one Cup for all, placed in open view.” No Romish Bishop can speak in this manner, he cannot say that “the Cup is for all ;” it is only for the celebrator, according to the present corrupt decrees and practice of that Church. St. Jerome describes the same privilege, when he hints? that “all are equally partakers of the Lord’s Body; there is one consecration” or consecrated [Eucharist | “in the mysteries, for the master and servant, the noble and ignoble.” And I apprehend, that this is the meaning of St. Barnabas in inviting the people “to come higher up towards the Altar,’ as well as “in a more holy manner ;” or it may be rendered, ‘in a more honourable manner; whether St. Barnabas used εὐσχημονεστέρως or ἀξιωτέρως or δεμνοτέρως or σεβασμιωτέρως, it is certain, that any of those words may justly be rendered ‘more honourably.’ And it was with reason esteemed an honour to the Christian laity, that they were allowed and invited to come into the Altar-room, which was the uppermost part of the Church, and to eat and drink the Eucharist in the very same apartment with the Bishops and Priests; and it is to be observed, that the Altar itself in the primitive Church stood in a more hon- ourable place than the altar of burnt-offering did in the tabernacle or temple. It not only stood within the chancel, if I may so speak, but toward the upper end of it. There was nothing above it but the Bishop’s throne. Whereas the altar of burnt-offerings stood without the door of the sanc- tuary or the priests’ apartment. Now as the Altar of Chris- tians is promoted to a more high and honourable place than the Jewish altar of burnt-offering was allowed; so the Chris- tian people are dignified beyond the old peculium, by being called up into the Altar-room, and there eating the Sacrifice, the most Holy of the Lord, together with the Priests. I am
° E. p. 41. Ap. P d. p. 28. Ap.
SECT. Ἧς
CHAP. Il.
Lev. i.5.11; iii. 2. 8; iv. 4,
448 THE CHRISTIAN SACRIFICE
sensible, that in after-ages none but the emperor was per- mitted to come within the Jema; and even by the nine- teenth canon of Laodicza‘, the people are prohibited from entering into the Altar-room; but in St. Ignatius’s time’ “he that was not within the Altar-room was deprived of the Bread of Gods.” And therefore all communicants did unques- tionably in that age go within the septum in order to receive the Eucharist ; and this Eucharist was by them esteemed and believed to be the Bread of God, of which none under the Law might eat but the priests and their families. For the flesh of the peace-offering, which the people were allowed to eat of, was never called the Bread of God; so that Christian people upon this account may claim the title of Priests in some- what a more emphatical sense, than the Jews could. Philo, in his book De Vita Mosist, is much mistaken, when he. asserts that the Jews did act as priests in the Passover, be- cause every private person might kill the lamb as a sacrifice ; for it is certain, the mactation was no sacerdotal act. The layman was to kill the beast, which he offered either for a burnt-offering or sin-offering or peace-offering; and Dr. Lightfoot reports it as a saying of the Rabbins, that the priest’s work begins with the sprinkling of the blood, but the mactation of the sacrifice may regularly be done by any one, even by strangers or women". Philo might with much greater truth have said, that in the Paschal solemnity the people acted as priests, in eating their share of it promis- cuously and in common with the priests themselves; and what the Jews did once a year, that the primitive Christians did daily.
Thisproved And it is very evident that our Saviour did intend the Eu-
from Scrip- ture.
John yi. 33.
charist to be not only a Sacrifice, but a feast upon a Saeri- fice; and therefore, when He was beforehand shewing to His disciples the nature of his Sacramental Flesh, He calls It “the Bread of God :” for, as Dr. Whitby justly observes, “ The ob-
4 p. 50. Ap. θύουσι δ᾽ of ἱερεῖς, ἀλλὰ νόμου προστάξει ΝΣ: Ap: σύμπαν τὸ ἔθνος ἱ ἱερᾶται, τοῦ κατὰ μέρος * See also Euseb. Hist., lib. vii. cap. ἑκάστου τὰς ὑπὲρ αὑτοῦ θυσίας ἃ ἀνάγον- 9. with Valesius’ Annotatt. and Bal- τος τότε καὶ χειρουργοῦντος.---Τ 10. iii. samon on the Second Can. of Dionys. p. 169. ed. Mangey. 1742. ] Alex. and Bingham. [2nd. Ed.) “ See Synopsis Critic. in Lue. xiii.
' Ev 7 (i.e. τῇ ἑορτῇ. τοῦ ῦ Πάσχα) οὐχ 1. [p. 148. ed. Cant. 1674. ] οἱ ἰδιῶται προσάγουσι τῷ βωμῷ τὰ ἱερεῖα,
CONSUMED BY MANDUCATION. 449
lations made to God are styled in the Old Testament ‘the SECT. Bread of God;’ and accordingly Christ styles His piacular [> Victim by the same name*.” And I must add, that nothing 6. 8. 22: but what had been sacrificed is ever in Scripture called the Bread of God; and therefore, when our Saviour gives this character of what we receive in the Sacrament, that it is the Bread of God, we may safely from thence infer, that it was
by Him designed as a feast on a Sacrifice. And when in the narrative of the institution He says, ‘ Take, eat, This is My
Body given,” i. 6. sacrificed ‘for you;’ He does not more plainly say, that the Body which He reached out to them
was now made an oblation for them, than He says that they
were to eat of It as such. In the tenth chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, St. Paul draws a parallel between
the heathen feasts upon the sacrifices and the Christian Eu- charist, or between “drinking the Cup of the Lord and the
cup of devils,” “ being partakers of the Lord’s Table” or Altar, “and the table” or altar “of devils.” So that im all ver. 21. the most observable contexts which treat of this Sacra- ment, it is represented to us as a Sacrifice consumed by manducation.
And thus, I apprehend, I have sufficiently established the Recapitu- doctrine of a real and proper Sacrifice in the Eucharist. | have shewed that a material oblation is there made, not in- deed of the natural or personal Body and Blood of Christ, yet of the Bread and Wine, which are by a Divine authority substituted in their stead; and which, by the invisible opera- tion of the Holy Ghost, are made the Body and Blood, so far as one thing (viz. Bread) can be another, (that is, the Body of Christ) ; and it is by this means the most valuable mate- rial Sacrifice that was ever offered, excepting the personal Sacrifice of Christ Himself. I have shewed that it is offered for those two great ends, for which all sacrifice was ever in- tended; that is, for an acknowledgment of God’s sovereign dominion, and especially of His goodness in redeeming us by Christ Jesus; and as a propitiatory and expiatory Sacrifice, not by any new accession of satisfaction or merit, but by the application of the infinite and inexhaustible virtue of the grand oblation. I have shewed that this Sacrifice has a pro-
* [p. 485. ] JOHNSON. Gg
CHAP. Il.
An objec- tion pro- posed con- cerning wicked men’s not eating the Body of Christ.
That wicked men do externally eat the Body of Christ.
450 HOW THE WICKED EAT NOT
per Altar, proper Priests, Ministers, and attendants ; and that it is to be rightly consumed by being eaten and drunk in the most solemn and devout manner, that any thing can be performed by men.
But our adversaries have given sufficient proof to the world, that calumny is their best argument. I expect that they will continue to oppress our cause and us with loads of reproach and contumely; that they will scarce satisfy them- selves with representing our real sentiments in the worst and blackest colours, but impute to us such consequences of our doctrine, as we can by no means own or allow. And since I at large proved, that what is eaten and drunk in the Com- munion is the Body and Blood of Christ, before It is ad- ministered and received ; and that the faith of the communi- cants cannot make It to be the Body and Blood any other- wise than It was made so by rehearsing the words of institu- tion, by the oblation and prayer for the Holy Ghost; it may, with some appearance of truth, be from hence inferred, that I believe the Body and Blood to be received by the wicked hypocritical communicant as well as by them who receive It with true faith and devotion; and therefore to silence this objection, I shall shew from the writings of the ancients,
1. That the wicked communicant does externally eat and drink the Body and Blood.
2. But that he does not do it internally, nor, by conse- quence, beneficially.
1. And that the wicked do externally eat and drink the Body and Blood, the ancients are very clear; thus St. Chrys- ostom speaks this truth,’ ‘ Look that you be not guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ ; they (the crucifiers) murdered His most sacred Body, and thou receivest It with a defiled soul:” and, “If they who defile the royal purple are punished, as if they had torn it; why is it unreasonable, that they who receive the Body with an unclean mind should undergo the same punishment with those who tore It with nails?” St. Augustine speaks to the same purpose*, “‘A Body hast Thou prepared Me;’ in This Body are we, of This Body are we partakers ; and you [catechumens] that do not know It, may you know It; and when you have learned It,
Yu. p. 39. Ap. = B. p. 41. Ap. Sor pies: Ap. les
THE BODY OF CHRIST. 45]
oh! may you not receive It to your own destruction !” Again”, “ How shall we understand this, viz. ‘if any man eat of this Bread, he shall live for ever?’ Can we here admit of those, of whom the Apostle says, ‘they eat and drink judg- ment,’ when they eat the Flesh and drink the Blood Itself?” He further there speaks of hypocrites and apostates, “who eat That Flesh, and drink That Blood ;” and in another place‘, “Though our Lord says, ‘except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man,’ &c., does not the Apostle teach us, that even this is pernicious to those who misuse it?” St. Jerome is altogether express", “ We pollute the Bread, that is, the Body of Christ, when we approach the Altar unworthily, and drink the Blood of the Lord while we are polluted ; and again®, “ As we did not equally receive the Body of Christ: there is one conse- cration” (or consecrated Bread) “in the mysteries.” “The mysteries of Christ,” says Ephrem Syrus‘, “are an immortal fire; take heed how you profanely pry into them, lest you be consumed to ashes in the participation of them;’ which mysteries he had just before called “the immaculate Body and Blood.” St. Cyprian is altogether as clear and full in this point, when he thus expresses himself against those, who had sacrificed to idols, and then came to the Communion, viz.2, “ Returning from the devil’s altars, they approach the Holy of the Lord with polluted hands, with hands infected with the nzdor of the heathen sacrifices. While they are yet belching their deadly meats, and their jaws stink of their wickedness and breathe out mortal contagion, they invade the Body of our Lord—violence is offered to His Body and Blood; and they sin more now against their Lord with their hands and mouths, than when they denied Him.” The Liturgies were formed upon this supposition; St. Basil’s particularly, in which there is a prayer®, that God “would grant that none might receive the Body and Blood of Christ to condemnation.” And in the Clementine Liturgy, after the distribution of the Bread and Cup, the Deacon bids prayer in these words, “ Let us, who have received the precious Body and the precious Blood of Christ, give thanks to Him that
bt. p. 84. Ap. fc. p. 25. Ap. e N’p. 36. A © 6. Ρ. 11. Ap Map 20. Ape h h. p. 57. Ap. e d. p. 28. Ap.
SE CT. Ve
CHAP. Il.
452 HOW THE WICKED EAT NOT
hath dignified us with the participation of His holy mysteries; and let us request [of Him] that it may not be to our con- demnation but salvation’.” This is omitted in my Appendix ; but the reader wiil find it, Constitutt., lib. viii. cap. 14. I shall in so plain a case add no more than that many of the an- cients did believe, that Judas received the Sacrament from our Lord’s hands; and that Origen is cited by several of them for saying, that what Judas received was of the ‘very same kind (ὁμογενὲς) with what was given to the rest; but that it was to him for judgment, to the others for salvation.” And I need not shew upon what authority of Scripture they grounded this opinion. Several of them tell us, that it was on those words of St. Paul, “ He that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s Body ; for it could be no fault not to discern It, if It were not there. What the wicked receive is, therefore, the Body of Christ; and their fault is, that they do not apprehend this mysterious Body to be what It is.
2. But the ancients did not believe that the wicked did eat the Body and Blood of Christ internally, spiritually, or beneficially. This I take to be St. Chrysostom’s meaning in those words*, “ How shall” or can “we receive the Body of God over all, Which is spotless, pure, and joimed to the Divine Nature, by Which we are, and live; by Which the gates of hell were broken and the doors of heaven opened,—with such insolence?” We have before heard him affirming that this Body might in some sense be received, even by these who come with an unclean mind; therefore in this place, he can intend no more than this, that they cannot re- ceive It to their own spiritual good and advantage. This is what St. Augustine means in that most famous passage’, “He who remains not in Christ, and in whom Christ does not remain, he does not spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ nor drink His Blood.” I find some cite these words with- out the adverb ‘spiritually ;? and I shall not trouble myself with the disputes of critics; but think it sufficient to ob- serve, that since this Father does so expressly declare, as we
i [MeradaBdyres τοῦ τιμίου σώματος καὶ παρακαλέσωμεν, μὴ εἰς κρίμα ἀλλ᾽ καὶ τοῦ τιμίου αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, εἰς σωτηρίαν ἡμῖν γενέσθαι.
εὐχαριστήσωμεν τῷ καταξιώσαντι ἡμᾶς k L. p. 42. Ap. μεταλαβεῖν τῶν ἁγίων Αὐτοῦ μυστηρίων" i'm. Ὁ. 92. Ap.
THE BODY OF CHRIST. 453
have seen, that in some sense, that is, externally, wicked men do eat the Flesh of Christ ; therefore, when on the other side he declares they do not eat It, he must in common equity be so understood to mean, that they do not receive It as good Christians, with faith and other good affections: and if he be not sufficiently clear in this place, yet he cer- tainly is so elsewhere; as when he says™, “Then will the Body and Blood of Christ be Life to every one, if what is in the Sacrament visibly taken be spiritually eaten and drunk.” He supposes, that what is given in the Sacrament visibly by the Minister giveth Life ; but then it is to those who receive It spiritually, that is, as a mystery, and therefore with the mind as well as with the mouth. St. Augustine does not distinguish between what we receive outwardly from the Minister, and what we receive inwardly from heaven; (but what is received is “visibly taken,” and is therefore the Sacrament Itself, en- riched with the power of the Spirit;) but he distinguishes between receiving It outwardly with the hands and mouth only, and “spiritually,” that is, with the concurrence of heart and affections: he speaks not of two Bodies of Christ to be received in the Sacrament, the typical and the real, the first of which is conveyed to the worthy receiver by the hand of the Priest, the other by the hand of his own faith; but of one Body only, and that “visibly taken.” But he makes a clear distinction between the Sacrament and ‘the virtue of the Sacrament’; and he distinguishes too between receiving It ‘outwardly, and receiving It ‘inwardly :’ yet he never supposes that men receive It inwardly, except they receive or desire to receive It outwardly; but he supposes many receive It outwardly, who do not receive It inwardly. All this he teaches plainly in the following citations, viz., “The Sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the Sacrament another: —This is the Bread which comes down from heaven; but as to what concerns the virtue of the Sacrament, not the visible Sacrament,” or sign; “him who eats internally, not him who eats externally, with his heart, not with his teeth.” For all the spiritual advantage proceeds from the “ virtue” of the Sacrament; and which therefore is not ordinarily to be ex- pected apart from the Sacrament itself; on which account m w. p. 34. Ap. " k. p. 32. Ap.
SECT. Ve
CHAP. Il.
454. HOW THE WICKED EAT NOT
he advises men® “so to eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of Christ, as not to receive It in the Sacrament or sign [only], which many wicked men do; but so as to participate of the Spirit: let us eat and drink so, as we may remain members of His Body and be vegetated with His Spirit.” And therefore having proposed the difficulty and seeming inconsistence between our Saviour’s saying, that except we eat His Flesh and drink His Blood, there is no Life in us; and the words of St. Paul, that some eat and drink these to their own condemnation, he solves it by adding these words?, “There is a certain manner of eating that Flesh and drinking that Blood; and ke that eats and drinks in that manner, Christ remains in him, and he in Christ :” and he describes the manner of doing it excellently well in those words$, “We betake ourselves to the Mediator of God and man, Who gives His Flesh to be eaten, His Blood to be drunk, by a faithful heart and mouth.” St. Jerome means, I suppose, the same thing in those words", “There is but one sanctification,” or sanctified Eucharist—* yet it is various in it’s effects, according to the merits or qualifications of the receivers ;” and it is probable St. Chrysostom means this, when he charges them to absent themselves from the Altar’, “that could not discern the calf slain, that could not see the Heavenly Blood poured out for remission of sin ;” meaning, I suppose, such as wanted a true faith. St. Cypriant seems to speak, as if he thought that the Sacramental Body, upon the touch of an unworthy receiver, ceased to be what It was before; as if our Lord withdrew Himself from such a man, and as if the sanctity of the symbols vanished; but we cannot conclude, that St. Cyprian believed that it was always so, for he was now relating a miracle; and I have met with nothing like this in any other ancient writer. And it is evident by what was cited from St. Cyprian under the former head, that he believed the Body of Christ to be ex- ternally received by wicked men; whereas if the sanctity vanish, it is no longer the Body of Christ. Origen expresses the whole truth excellently well in a few words", “The sanc-
᾿ ᾿ Ρ. πὸ Ἐξ 8 He i Ἡ Ap. ᾿ t. p. 34. Ap. ‘Lp. Il. Ap. “ M. p. 36. Ap. “ fp. 10. Ap. L 4.
* d. p. 28. Ap
THE BODY OF CHRIST. 4.55
tified food becomes profitable, according to the proportion of SECT. faith.” He ascribes the effects to the food itself, not the Ἐ natural bread, but the bread sanctified by prayer, and “ over
which the Word [of institution] hath been pronounced ;” but
yet this bread is profitable only in proportion to the faith of
the receiver; which is a demonstration that he thought it
could not be profitably eaten without faith.
There are three reasons why a thing cannot be eaten, viz., Three par- first, that it is in it’s own nature incapable of it, as wood or ieee stone. This cannot be said of the Sacramental Body of REE aS Christ; for it is in it’s gross substance bread, than which capable of
: Β ΜΌΝ manduca- nothing is more proper for manducation and nutrition; and tion. therefore it may be externally eaten not only by infidels but by brutes, and this latter is a much less profanation of it than the former. But then it is also mysterious Bread, where one thing is seen, another meant; and therefore can- not be truly eaten but by rational creatures, who can perceive the signification and virtue of it. 2. Another reason why a thing cannot be eaten is, that it is what we cannot come at, that it is at least for the present out of our reach. And it may so happen that the actual receiving the Eucharist, even in a Christian Church, may be impracticable for want of a Priest, or the elements, or of a competent number of commu- nicants, (I say this last in relation to our Church;) and I must confess, I cannot conceive, that he who does not exter- nally receive the Sacrament can in act and reality receive It inwardly. But thus much is certain, that God in all such cases accepts the will for the deed, when the reason why the deed is not performed proceeds not from any wilful defect in ourselves. He that would relieve the wants of others if he had wherewithal, he that would attend the public wor- ship if it were in his power, and has in the mean time a sincere desire, a holy hunger and thirst after these duties, but is incapable and disabled through some invincible obsta- cle, is undoubtedly an almsgiver and a public worshipper in the sight of God, though he cannot in fact either give alms or come to Church. So he who has earnest and longing de- sires after the receiving the Sacrament but has no possible op- portunity of doing it, when the want of opportunity does not proceed from any voluntary cause, shall infallibly be deemed
CHAP, Il.
Heb. xi. 17.
456 HOW THE WICKED EAT NOT
and dealt with by a just God, as if he were an actual com- municant ; and God can by extraordinary means supply the want of Sacraments, when He sees just occasion; and there- fore no man need stick to affirm of all honest Christians, who wish for the Sacrament but cannot have It, that they eat the Body and drink the Blood of Christ profitably to their souls’ health, although they do not receive the Sacra- ment with their mouths; not that the Body and Blood of Christ is to be had anywhere in this life, save in the Eucha- rist; but because, as has been said, God takes the will for the deed, when the will is sincere, and the deed is impossi- ble to be done, through some intervening act of God, or when it cannot be properly performed through some fault of other men. A devout Christian receives the Sacramental Body and Blood of Christ, by having a readiness and zeal for that duty, though he cannot in fact do it; just as “ Abraham offered Isaac,” that is, intentionally and beneficially to his soul’s health. A third reason why a thing cannot be eaten is, because the person to whom it is offered, by reason of some defect in himself, cannot eat, masticate, or swallow it. And though there are very few indeed that cannot thus externally eat the Sacramental Body as to It’s gross substance, which is Bread; yet there are very great numbers of men, that can- not receive It internally, as It is the mysterious Body of Christ, and ennobled with the especial Presence of the Spirit, for want of faith and other holy dispositions. They can take It with their mouths and press It with their teeth, but they cannot ruminate and digest It by “ discerning the Lord’s Body,” and converting It to the nourishment of their souls; for It is a Spiritual Body, not so much intended for the repast of our palates and stomachs as of our minds. It conveys indeed to the body, as I intend to shew in the second part of this work, a principle of happy immortality ; but it is on condition that our bodies be preserved pure and undefiled, for there is no communion with Christ and Belial. Both the bodies and souls of wicked men labour of a fatal lientery as to this sacred Food, and for want of digestion receive no bene- fit from It. In a word, though the holy Sacrament abounds with Divine blessings, yet wicked men are incapable of re- » ceiving or applying them; their faith is defective, their under-
THE BODY OF CHRIST. 457
standings and wills are vitiated; “the right eye” of such men is “utterly darkened,” as the prophet Zechariah expresses it, that is, all their superior faculties are impaired, so as-to be wholly unfit to perceive these Divine mysteries, and render them beneficial to themselves. Just so the blind man can- not receive light, even when he is surrounded with it. And he only that internally and spiritually receives the Sacrament, does “ eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood,” according to the design and intendment of our blessed Savi- our; as will further appear by what I have to say in the next place, concerning that most notable context in the sixth chap- ter of St. John’s Gospel.
A proof that the context in the sixth chapter of the Gospel of St. John, from verse 26 to verse 36, and from verse 47 to verse 64, is to be understood of Sacramental eating and drinking.
Wuen 1 affirm that this context is to be understood of Sacramental eating and drinking; my reader will easily per- ceive, that I do not mean receiving with our mouths only, or pressing with our teeth the outward signs, or taking the con- secrated Bread and Wine, sacramento tenus, in the sense of St. Augustine just before mentioned; but the receiving it as a mystery, that is, as the Body and Blood of Christ, not only in signification but in virtue and power, and therefore with such holy affections and dispositions, as befit such a Divine institution.
And when I affirm that it is so to be understood, my meaning is, that I take it to have been our Saviour’s primary and direct intendment in this context to treat of the Sacra- mental eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood in the Eu- charist. It was the common opinion of the Fathers and the School-men, that all or most texts of Scripture had more than one sense or meaning; and 1 shall not concern myself with this notion any further than to own, that this is certainly true of very many texts. Whether it can in strictness be said of the context now in dispute, I shall not pretend positively to
SECT.
chap. xi. 17.
The case stated.
458 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
CHAP. determine; but shall content myself, and, I hope, my reader
——— too, if I can make it appear that our Saviour’s principal and main design was, in these words, to instruct His hearers in the excellence and beneficialness of the Eucharist, which He resolved afterwards to institute. This I shall endeavour to prove,
First, From the general consent of the ancient Fathers, and primitive Church.
Secondly, From intrinsic arguments drawn from the words themselves.
I. In order to shew, that I have the general consent of the Fathers and primitive Church on my side, I shall,
1. Consider such allegations, as have been produced from antiquity against that sense of John vi. which I am now asserting.
2. I shall produce positive authorities from the ancients, in behalf of this sense.
It is con- (1.) 1 am to consider such allegations to the contrary, as the Wathers others have produced from antiquity. I deny not but that sometimes some of the Fathers do interpret John vi. of hearing, receiv-
explain John vi. of ing, or believing the doctrine of Christ; nor will I at present but how? dispute, whether they meant receiving Christ’s doctrine to- gether with His Sacramental Body and Blood, which is cer- tainly the most perfect way of receiving it; or whether they intended a bare receiving it by faith, and extra cenam, as the moderns commonly express themselves. But it is certain that they who receive the Sacrament according to the will and design of Christ Jesus, do receive the Word and precepts of Christ together with the Bread and Wine. Nay, it is further certain, that we receive not the Word of God so effec- tually in any other way, or by any other means, as in and by the holy Eucharist : for thereim only God seals all His evan- gelical promises to baptized Christians; and therein only baptized Christians do set their seal of fealty and obedience to His laws. Various But my reader cannot have forgotten, what I so lately fuses of hinted, that it was the common opinion of the Fathers, that a Scripture was capable of a double interpretation, viz., literal, ee and spiritual; and further, they often vary in the spiritual ~ interpretation of a text, by sometimes affixing to it a mys-
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 459
tical signification, as supposing that even the historical nar- rations in Scripture are intended to represent to us the hidden wisdom of God in the redemption of mankind; sometimes by giving a moral or tropological meaning to matters of fact recorded in the Old or New Testament, as supposing that over and above the historical sense the Holy Spirit designed to give us instructions for the regulation of our lives ; some- times by giving such a construction to any doctrine or pre- cept either of the New Testament or Old, as is not necessarily implied in the words themselves, but only more remotely hinted, as they conceived ; and this last they commonly called the anagogical sense. It is needless to give instances of all these several sorts of interpretations ; especially because there are but two of them that do at all affect the present dispute ; that is, the mystical, and the anagogical. For it is given for granted by the ancients and by all the Protestants of the Church of England, that these words of our Saviour were never meant by Him im a literal sense; or that He never in- tended to give His Body to be eaten, His Blood to be drunk, in the sense that His unthinking hearers wotted ; and that therefore they must be understood in a spiritual sense only ; and to this I readily subscribe.
And this I suppose is to be applied to the words of institu- tion, viz., “This is My Body, This is My Blood ;” as well as to the “ eating” His “ Flesh,” “drinking” His “ Blood” here in John vi. And I conceive, that the Fathers never doubted but that this mystical or spiritual sense was that which our Saviour primarily intended in both places. But my reader, if he have perused the foregoing sections, will easily perceive, that when I speak of the “ spiritual sense,” Iam not so to be understood, as if I thought our Saviour spoke of feeding the mind only and not the mouth; or as if He meant, as the Papists do, that His Body is present in the Eucharist, after the manner of a spirit; or that It is given to all the faithful or worthy receivers, in an invisible or imaginary manner, as the Calvinists fancy ; but I take the spiritual sense, as opposed to the literal, to imply, that we are not to take the phrase of “eating His Flesh” in the most natural or obvious mean- ing, as if it imported feeding with our teeth only, or on His substantial Body; but as importing the reception of Christ’s
The spiri- tual sense of John vi.
460 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
pe Sacramental Body or His mysterious Flesh both with our — —— minds and mouths; for I have sufficiently shewed, that Christ’s Eucharistical Body is a spiritual Body. The anago- But then beside the primary and direct sense of the text, ees the ancients commonly supposed that there was a reductive or anagogical meaning, in which it might be taken. Thus we have already seen several of the Fathers interpreting that petition, “Give us this day our daily bread,” as meant not only in relation to the necessary supplies of bodily food and raiment but of the Eucharistical Body and Blood. I sup- pose they did not doubt but that the words were primarily meant by our Saviour in the former sense; but that they might, by a reductive construction, be applied to the latter. And by parity of reason they might be fully persuaded, that John vi. was first and most properly to be understood of the Eucharist; and yet at the same time be of opinion, that it might likewise, in a more remote way, be applied to receiv- ing of Christ’s doctrine or precepts. And so far as I am able to penetrate into the judgment of the ancients in this particular, I can see no reason to believe that they did ever understand John vi. of believing Christ’s doctrine, or receiving His Word by faith, extra cenam, to be meant by our Saviour otherwise than in this anagogical way of interpretation. None ofthe Jt ought particularly to be observed, that none of the Fathers do : : : say that Fathers did ever say that John vi. was not meant of oral Joon vt or Sacramental manducation; which yet is what Dr. Whitby Nae has thought fit to assert, in his annotations on ver. 58, 54°. And he attempts to prove it chiefly by the authority of the ancients; with how good success he has done this we shall presently see: but in the mean time let the reader consider, that there is this grand objection lies against the Doctor’s hypothesis, that not one of the ancients do say, in the words produced by him, that John vi. is not meant of the Sacrament ; nay, they speak nothing that could give any just grounds for the Doctor’s notion.
The most learned and ingenious Dr.Clagett had many years before published a tract on John vi., in which he asserts that this context is to be understood of “spiritual actions,” by which he meant faith, obedience, &c., though he is pleased to
wp. 00:
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 461
own that the words may be accommodated to the Eucharist. SECT. Both these Doctors use the same citations ; the difference how- bi ever is not very great in this point, And I will in charity be-
lieve that these two learned men have produced the strongest proofs that antiquity affords, in maintenance of their own opinion. And yet I suppose it will appear very clearly, that
the citations alleged by them prove at most no more than this,
that the context now in dispute may anagogically be applied
to believing in Christ or His doctrine; and so do not at all affect the truth which I assert, viz., that John vi. is primarily
to be understood of the Eucharist. I will consider the cita- tions produced by these learned men, in the same order that
Dr. Whitby ranges them.
He begins* with those words of Clemens Alexandrinusy, Clemens _ “The Word is all things to a babe, a father, a mother, a pre- cea ceptor, a foster: [“ eat,” says He, “ My Flesh” and “drink My Whithy’s Blood,” allegorically signifying the clear liquor of faith and the sense. promise:] He bids us put off the old carnal corruption and food, and partake the other new Food of Christ, and receiving Him to store Him up if possible in ourselves, and to inclose our Saviour in our breasts.” The Doctor only produces so much of this paragraph as stands between the hooks. Now I must declare, that I am not able to form any supposition, upon which an argument can be fetched to serve his turn; but I look upon the words rather as an argument against that sense, which he has espoused: for these words, “ Eat My Flesh,” &c. are meant either,
1. Of eating Christ’s Flesh, and drinking His Blood, ac- cording to the intention of our Saviour in the sixth of John ;
2. Or of eating His Sacramental Flesh and Blood, accord- ing to the command in the words of institution ; (for I now argue upon the hypothesis of Dr. Whitby, which is, that the eating Christ’s Flesh in John vi. is a distinct thing from eating His Sacramental Body.) But,
1. If Clement must be understood of eating Christ’s Flesh, according to the meaning of our Saviour in John vi., then we are further to inquire what he means by ἀλληγορῶν, which I render ‘allegorically signifying.” Now ‘allegorically signi-
x p. 491. Y a.p. 7. Ap.
462 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
μα: Pp. fying’ must import one of these two things, viz., either signi- “— fying in a remote and very figurative improper manner, which is the common denotation of this word in ecclesiastical as well as foreign writers; and from thence it follows, that Clement was now designedly interpreting this context, not in that sense which he thought to be first and principally meant by our Saviour, but in a secondary and more im- proper one. And if therefore the Doctor be willing to under- stand this word in the most common acceptation, he must be forced to grant that this is the allegorical meaning of John vi., and therefore not the proper or primary one. Or else by the word ἀλληγορῶν, Clement intended to denote a Sacramental representation ; and then the words ought to have been ren- dered, “ ‘ Eat,’ says Christ, ‘ My Flesh,’ and ‘drink My Blood,’ Sacramentally representing the clear liquor of faith,’ &e. And if he does therefore here speak of John vi., he by con- sequence interprets this context of the Eucharist ; for no other Blood of Christ but the Eucharistical can be said Sa- cramentally to signify or represent. And that St. Clement does use the word in this sense, is evident from that passage’, «The liquor of gladness,” that is, the Cup in the Eucharist, ἀλληγορεῖ, “Sacramentally represents the Word poured out for the remission of sins.” And indeed Dr. Whitby gives another instance of this signification of the word, not far from the passage first cited, viz., “70 δὲ αἷμα οἶνος ἀλληγορεῖται", « Wine Sacramentally represents the Blood.’ The Doctor left the words untranslated; but from this it appears, that Clement took the Eucharistical Blood to represent the doc- trine of Christ; and that therefore Clement here spoke of John vi. if he had this context in his eye, as meant of the holy Eucharist ; for there only the Blood can Sacramentally represent the doctrine of Christ.
2. If we understand the Father as speaking here of the words of institution, then the Doctor did to no purpose al- lege this passage of St. Clement ; for certainly it was not the Doctor’s intention to prove, that by eating Christ’s Body or Flesh, (which will soon appear to be the very same thing) and drinking His Blood, according to the command of Christ Jesus, in Matt. xxvi. 26, we are to understand nothing but
ΣΟ ΡΥ tare a [Pzd., lib. i. cap. 6. ed. Potter, p. 126.]
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 4.63
believing. And in truth I can see no shadow of reason, why SECT. we should suppose that Clement had any other text directly he in his view, beside the history of institution. For he intro- duces our Saviour as speaking imperatively, “ Eat ye, drink ye;” and our Saviour never uses this style but in the Eu- charist only; and it has been already shewed, that the word ἀλληγορῶν does in this writer denote ‘the Sacramental re- presentation.” And that all the promises of the Gospel, par- don, grace, and eternal happiness, are less directly or im- plicitly represented and exhibited to communicants in the Eucharist, is what will be denied by none. And it is evident that Clement restrains his words to the promissive doctrine only, when he calls the Eucharistical Cup “the clear liquor of faith, and the promise ;” though I see no reason to ques- tion but by receiving the Eucharist we do implicitly receive all the doctrines of the Gospel, for as much as the Eucharis- tical symbols are most perfect representatives of Christ cruci- fied, and Christ crucified is the sum of the Gospel. So that I am perfectly at aloss to know, what Dr. Whitby intended by producing these words of Clement, which, however you take them, destroys his hypothesis.
Dr. Clagett, as well as Dr. Whitby, does also produce those words of Clement”, “ The Word is diversely allegorized or Sa- cramentally represented as food, as flesh, as nourishment, as bread, as blood, as milk.” ᾿Αλληγορεῖται may here be turned * Sacramentally represented ;” for that milk was in Clement’s age used in Baptism, there isno room to doubt. But if you choose by ἀλληγορεῖται, to understand the remote and im- proper signification of the ‘ Blood” mentioned John vi., then the most to be gained by it is this, that in the more loose and remote sense, John vi. may be understood of the Word spoken. These citations therefore do not at all serve the cause, which these two Doctors had espoused.
Nay, if what has been already observed does not shew that Clem. Alex. Clement took John vi. to be meant of the Sacrament ; yet when ae the reader refiects on that gloss he gives upon those words, t#eDoctors. “ Eat My Flesh” and “ Drink My Blood,” which are plainly the words of institution, rehearsed memoriter, and therefore not according to the original text ; when, I say, he puts this gloss
> Predag., lib. ii. cap. i.
CHAP. Il.
1 ΟἿΟΣ. χ. 4. 1 Cor. xii.13.
Tertullian shewed to be not against the sense for which I plead, but rather for it.
464 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
upon them, viz. Christ “bids us put off the old corruption,” he will see reason to believe that this ancient writer applies those words in John vi. 58, “ He that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever,” to the receivmg the holy Sacrament. And the same may be said of those words of Clement’, where distinguishing “the spiritual Blood of Christ” from “ the carnal,” he says, that “by the spiritual Blood we partake of incorruption ;” for that by the ‘spiritual Blood” he means the Sacramental, has been already proved; and that the Father does so explain himself, the citation, which is to be seen at large in the Appendix, does sufficiently declare. And indeed the very words, which I now hint at, seem to be another proof of his understanding John vi. primarily of the Eucha- rist ; for, says he, “The mixture of the liquor and the Word is called the Eucharist, of which they who partake with faith are sanctified both as to body and soul.’”’ For I conceive that the sanctifying power of the Eucharistical Flesh and Blood can be directly proved from John vi. only, where Christ’s Flesh is called “the Bread of God,” that is, “the most Holy Meat,” which sanctified men’s bodies by it’s touch under the old Law; see Ley. vi. 27. And indeed he could ground his notion of the “spiritual Blood” in the Eucharist upon no other text than John vi. 63; for though St. Paul calls it “ spiritual drink,” and says “ We are all made to drink into the One Spirit,” yet he does not so explain the spiritual efficacy of the Sacrament as to make it a principle of imcor- ruption or immortality, as Clement here does. So that I can see no reason why I may not reckon upon Clement as an evidence for that sense of John vi. which I believe to have been first intended by our blessed Saviour.
The next writer cited by Dr. Whitby and Dr. Clagett is Tertullian, whose words he is pleased thus to represent; “Our Lord all along urged His intent by allegory, calling His Word “ Flesh,’ as being to be hungered after, that we might have Life; to be devoured by the ear, ruminated upon by the mind, and by faith digested.” The reader, by turn- ing his eye to the words of Tertullian in the margin4, will see
Sr bseng-eAns supra (he cites John v. 24.) Itaque a «*E}xsequitur etiam quid velit intel- Sermonem constituens vivificatorem, ligiSpiritum : ‘Verba que locutussum quia Spiritus et vita Sermo, eumdem vobis, Spiritus sunt, vita sunt,’ sicutet etiam carnem suam dixit; quia et
JOHN VI, MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 465
how faithful the Doctor is in his citations. But for brevity’s sake I will grant the Doctor his own translation. Let it be allowed, that Tertullian supposes that these words may alle- gorically be understood, and that he by an allegory means a remote and improper interpretation ; doth it therefore follow that the text has not a more strict and proper meaning? I am sure Dr. Whitby and all learned men will allow, that Tertullian himself does nowhere use a greater latitude and liberty in glossing Scripture than in this passage. For he supposes or rather asserts the Word spoken, and incar- nate, the Spirit, the Flesh, even that Flesh which the sub- stituting Word assumed, to be the same; and if he sup- poseth that our Saviour intended these words in an allegori- cal as well as in a more direct sense, this only shews that Dr. Whitby by the allegorical or secondary sense would set aside the other sense, which is more proper and therefore more eligible: but if by ‘ allegory’ he means the Sacrament, as it is evident that Clemens Alexandrinus by ‘allegorizing’ means ‘ Sacramentally representing,’ then the Doctor's argu- ment is wholly lost. And it will be hard to prove that Ter- tullian by “the allegory of necessary food” “ does not mean the Eucharist. And when he adds that “ our Saviour urged upon them the memory of their fathers, who preferred the bread and flesh of Egypt before the Divine will;” his meaning seems to be, that Christ’s present hearers were like their ancestors, who desired the dainties of Egypt rather than manna; for just thus His present hearers had a greater ap- petite to such food as He had the day before prepared for them by a miracle, than to that Food from heaven which He had been speaking of. And I see not any incongruity in his supposition, that our Saviour, in reminding them of the ‘quickening Spirit’ and of His own powerful ‘Word,’ did de- sign to admonish them of avoiding that carnal and sordid
Sermo caro erat factus; proinde in causam vite appetendus, et devorandus auditu, et ruminandus intellectu, et fide digerendus. Nam et paulo ante, car- nem suam panem quoque czlestem pronunciarat, urgens usquequaque per allegoriam necessariorum populorum, memoriam patrum, qui panes et carnes fEgyptiorum preverterant Divine vo- cationi. Igitur conversus ad recogi-
JOHNSON.
tatus illorum, quia senserat dispergen- dos, ‘ Caro,’ ait, ‘nihil prodest.’ Quid hoe ad destruendam carnis resurrec- tionem.””— De Resurrect., c. 37. [p. 347. Ed. Paris. 1664. }
¢ [Johnson read ‘ pabulorum,’ ac- cording to Rigaltius’s Edition. In the preceding note, the Benedictine read- ing ‘ populorum’ has been followed. ]
Hh
SECT. Υ.
CH AP. Il.
466 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
disposition of mind, which had so provoked God against
~—~— their ancestors ; though this must be allowed to be but a con-
Eph. ii. 22.
jectural gloss: but when Dr. W. represents these words of Tertullian, as if the Father had said that “ Christ urged” His own intent “by allegories,” he seems to me to take a greater liberty in rendering this saying of Tertullian, than Tertullian does in glossing the sacred text. We have seen that all true communicants do “hunger after, devour with their ears, ruminate by the mind, and by faith digest” the words of Christ, as well as the external symbols; and therefore as Tertullian asks the Marcionites, (who used to produce these words of Christ, “The flesh profiteth not,” as a proof against the doctrine of our bodies being to be raised from the dead,) “ How does this tend to destroy the doctrine of the resurrec- tion?” so I may have leave humbly to ask the Doctor, how does this of Tertullian tend to destroy that sense of this con- text in John vi. for which I am now arguing? It is true in this place he makes no express mention of the Eucharist ; but in p. 979 of this very book he does, and that in such terms as seem to imply that he understood John vi. of the Sacrament. I mean those remarkable words of his®, “ The flesh is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ, that the soul may be replenished with God ; for whether by “ God” you understand the Second or Third Person of the Trinity, I sup- pose the truth itself must be learned from John vi. as un- derstood of the Eucharist. For from thence only it can be proved that “he who eats Christ’s Flesh and drinks His Blood has Christ abiding in him,” or is “the habitation of God through the Spirit ;” for Christ dwells in us by means of the Spirit, Which He hath given us. If by “God” you un- derstand ‘the Spirit,’ I suppose I have shewed that the best proof of the Spirit’s being conveyed to us by means of the Eucharist, is from John vi. 63, understood according to the sense of the ancient Church®. And that Tertullian under- stood John vi. of the Eucharist, appears pretty evidently from those words of his, in which he explains “ our daily bread” in the Lord’s Prayer’, viz., “This may spiritually be understood ; f [It must be borne in mind, that ¥ m. p. 8. Ap. the Author refers to the paging of the » See are section to chap. ii. sect. 1. ‘ g.p
Edition, which he here employed, viz. 8. Ap. Rigaltius’s. ]
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 467
for Christ is Bread, and Bread is life—as also because His sEcT. Body is authoritatively declared to be in Bread, ‘This is My = Body ;? therefore by asking daily bread we ask perpetuity in
Christ, and that we may remain undivided from His Body.”
For by these last words he clearly alludes to that text, “ He John vi. 56. who eateth My Flesh abideth in Me,” and as clearly applies
it to the Eucharist. Tertullian then is rather for me than
against me.
The next writer cited by Dr. W. in favour of his opinion, The sameis that John vi. is not to be understood of the Eucharist, is Ori- perdiha gen. Now it may be proper previously to observe, that Origen secs is the most remarkable of any other ancient expositors for the variety of senses, which he frequently applies to the same text. And though Clement of Alexandria, who was his mas- ter, did probably teach him this way of expounding Scrip- ture; yet it is certain, that Origen was one of those scholars, who mightily outwent his master. He commonly calls his more remote and anagogical constructions ‘allegories ;’ not in the sense that his master Clement says that “ Wine allegorizes,” that is, “Sacramentally represents the Blood,” but as ‘allegory’ denotes a very figurative and remote sense. And therefore, when he owns himself to be in pursuit of an allegory, we may safely conclude that it was not his intention to give us the direct sense or proper meaning of the text which he is handling.
_ Haying premised thus much, I proceed to the first allega- tion from this writer, produced by Dr. W., which is this; “We are said to drink the Blood of Christ, when we receive His sayings, in which Life consists/;” so the words are quoted by the Doctor. But the words of Origen’s translator are, Bibere autem dicimur Sanguinem Christi, non solum Sacra- mentorum ritu, sed et cum sermones Ejus recipimus, in quibus vita consistit, sicut et Ipse dicit, John vi. 63. *In English, “ We are said to drink the Blood of Christ, not only in the rite of the Sacraments, but when we receive His sayings,” &c. The Doctor had good reason to maim this evidence, because it is directly against him. For he undertakes to prove from Origen, that John vi. “is not to be understood of Sacramental oral man- ducation ; whereas Origen says, ‘‘ We are said to drink the
i Homil. xvi. in Num. fol. 123. * [tom. ἢ, p. 334.] Hh 2
CHAP. ie
Numb. xxiii, 24,
468 JOHN Vi. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
Blood of Christ, not only in the rite of the Sacraments,” (and it has been more than once observed, that the ancients often call the Bread and Wine in the Eucharist ‘ Sacraments’ in the plural number). And in these words he does as expressly con- tradict Dr. W.’s doctrine, as if he had said, “ We do in the rite of the Sacraments drink the Blood of Christ, according to John vi.” For it was of these words he was now discours- ing, and he had just before rehearsed ver. 58, viz., “ Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His Blood,” &c., “and My Flesh is meat indeed,” &c., and “He that says this was wounded for all; for He was wounded for our sins,” as saith Esaias'. And then follow the words first cited; so that Origen’s testimony recoils on them that use it. For it is certain that in those words he applies these verses in John vi. to the Eucharist. And though he does © also say that “we drink the Blood of Christ by receiving His sayings ;” yet his way of expression sufficiently shews, that the Sacramental drinking was the primary and acknow- ledged sense, and the other the allegorical. And indeed he was professedly upon the allegorical flight; for the occa- sion of all he says in this place was, that he thought the literal sense of those words, “ He shall not sleep until he drink the blood of the slain,’ to be too harsh; for he supposes it to be a prophecy of the Christian Church, and that there- fore “abhorring the sound of the letter we must recur to a sweetening allegory ; and so expounds these words by John vi. 53. And because ‘slain’ is in the plural number, and there- fore to drink the Blood of Christ, Who was but one Person, did not come up to his purpose, therefore he adds that “the Apostles were also slain, and that when we read their writings we drink the blood of slain men.” ‘Therefore one may cer- tainly pronounce this to be in Origen’s own judgment the allegorical sense of John vi., and by unavoidable consequence, not to be that primary proper sense intended by our Saviour in these words.
And here my reader may observe, that neither Origen nor
1 The reader will excuse me that I which they are translated, very plain, allege Origen here, and in the other ci- 50 that I think my reader may depend tations on this head, in English only. upon the rendition which I have given. The citations are numerous, and some I can assure him that I have not de- | of them long; and the Latin, from signedly misrepresented one word.
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 469
any other of the ancients does ever professedly labour to prove SET that John vi. was to be understood of the Eucharist ; not be- ee cause they did not think that this was our Saviour’s mean- take it fot ing in this place, for it will soon abundantly appear that ἄεα ας they did generally so take it; but because this sense of the ἵν ποθοῦν words was so obvious and so commonly received, that there Eucharist. was no occasion to insist upon a particular demonstration of it. Origen’s zeal for the allegorical sense makes him here and elsewhere enlarge himself in justification of the gloss, which Dr. Clagett and Dr. Whitby assert to be the true one. But he saw no cause to use any persuasion or argument to convince himself or his intelligent hearers, that Christ was to be understood of the Sacrament; for which no reason can so probably be alleged as this, that all were sufficiently ap- prised that this was the common prevailing sense in which the words were generally taken; and therefore Origen thinks it sufficient to mention it en passant, as a thing of which nobody doubted: while on the other side he knew that his allegorical construction of the words would not so easily be admitted; and therefore he found it necessary to press and enforce it ; and this will appear more evident from that citation from him, which Dr. Whitby next mentions.
This citation is as follows; “Christ’s Flesh is meat indeed, and His Blood drink indeed; because He feedeth all man- kind with the Flesh and Blood of His Word, as with pure meat and drink™.” 1 should rather have turned the words, “ He irrigates and refreshes every sort of men with,” &c., for the Latin words are, Potat ac reficit omne hominum genus, &e. Now that Origen in this Homily is upon the allegorical flight, is evident to all that ever looked into it. He had indulged himself so far this way in the former part of his discourse, that he apprehended his readers to be offended with him; and therefore apologizes for himself in fol. 72, by alleging the example of St. Paul. And he goes 1 Cor. x. on to tell us that St. Peter went into an upper room to pray, ee aa “to shew that he sought after the things which are above.” And because it was said to that Apostle, “ ‘Kill and eat,’ three several times,” he will thereby have this doctrine insinuated, that “except we are cleansed by Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, we cannot be clean.” No man certainly can believe,
™ Homil. vii. in Levitic., fol. 72, 73.
CHAP. Ik.
470 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
that Origen designed to persuade his hearers that this was the primary and direct intention of the holy writer, in giving us this narrative; nay, he himself supposes the contrary, for he says this in justification of his former allegorical exposi- tions. He does indeed introduce his gloss on this passage of John vi. by saying, “That what we are speaking of may more evidently be made to appear, we will take an instance in things of greater moment ;” and then cites John vi. 53. 55, and adds, “ Because Jesus is wholly clean, His Flesh is wholly meat, His Blood is wholly drink, therefore He says, ‘ My Flesh is meat indeed ;’” and so proceeds as first cited. And he pre- sently subjoins, “ Peter and Paul and all the Apostles are clean in the next place after Christ; and thirdly, all the disciples in proportion to their merits are clean food.” He supposes that this allegory of his was better grounded than the rest, and therefore hopes to support the others by this; but if this had been the primary and direct intention of our Saviour in this text, it had been nothing to his present pur- pose, which was to justify a secondary and more remote ex- position. And to give farther evidence of this, he says, “There is a killing letter in the Gospel as well as Law;” and gives John vi. as an instance of this killing letter; which is indeed a good proof against transubstantiation. And he alleges another instance of this in those words of our Saviour, “ He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” He tells us that “there is in these words the quicken- ing Spirit,” meaning, I suppose, ‘ the sword of the Spirit.’ No man can in equity suppose, that Origen intended to deny that there was a more proper and just interpretation of those. words; or that the history recorded Luke xxii. 835—38 was meant of nothing but of a spiritual sword, which is the Word of God; and I am very confident that no impartial reader will see cause to suppose that Origen believed this construc- tion of John vi. to be more proper and genuine than any of the rest. There is indeed this difference between John vi. and other texts here produced by Origen, that others of them have a literal meaning intended by the holy writers ; but this of John vi. has no literal meaning intended either by Christ Jesus or St. John. But that Origen himself acknowledged that “we eat Christ’s Flesh in the rite of the Sacraments,” has been already observed; and that this is a more proper
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 471
sense than that of ‘receiving His doctrine,’ needs no proof. = For that the Eucharistical Bread and Wine are verily and in- deed Christ’s Body and Blood, though not literally, has been shewed at large; but this can never be said of His precepts, except in avery remote and loose way of speaking. IfOrigen, in all this disquisition about eating clean animals, which be- gins p. 72. col. 1. do give the proper sense of any one text that he cites, it is [that of] the parable of “the net which Matt xiii. gathered of every kind.” And it is certain, that by the * good and bad fishes he justly understands men"; but when in the same place he supposes that these good or bad men are like clean or unclean fishes, to be tasted or eaten by discourse or conversation, he manifestly runs into an alle- gory: and he does this more manifestly still®, where he says, “Those fishes, which are assisted by their fins and covered with scales, do rise upward, as seeking the liberty of the Spirit. And such,” says he, “is every saint, who being inclosed in the net of faith is called a good fish by Christ Jesus.” So that all which can be learnt from this citation is, that Origen is here allegorizing the words of our Saviour ; and consequently, that believing Christ’s doctrine is not eat- ing His Flesh and drinking His Blood, in the most direct and primary manner intended by our Blessed Saviour. Dr. Whitby lays some stress on the words used by Origen on this occasion, viz., “If ye are the sons of the Church, acknow- ledge that what we say are the things of the Lord ;” and if Origen had been performing the part of an interpreter, it must be owned that these words had been of considerable weight ; but he himself, in the very beginning of the Homily, declares that this was not his design. Non enim nunc expo- nendi Scripturas, sed edificandi Ecclesias ministerium gerimus. And it is very evident, he kept close to his purpose, and acts the allegorist through the whole discourse. And when he charges them as “sons of the Church” to allow of his glosses, the utmost he can mean is, that it was then a prevailing opi- nion, that secondary remote allegorical senses of Scripture were to be admitted over and above the direct genuine meaning; and yet this opinion did not so much prevail but that Origen found occasion to complain of some men, for n fol. 72. col. 4. © fol. 73. col. 4:
CHAP. Il.
472 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
charging him with ‘offering violence to Scripture’ by his allegorical strains? ; and he might have spared all his pains, which he takes to defend himself on this occasion, if the sense which he gives to this and other texts had been the received sense of the Church in those days. I am pretty confident, that neither Dr. Whitby nor any of his followers will allow of any one of the allegorical glosses of Origen above mentioned, excepting this only on John vi., but I con- ceive in this case he ought not to pick and choose, but to take all or none; for it is the judgment or authority of Origen, for which we are now arguing; and he does as clearly declare that “ thrice,” Acts x. 16, denotes the trine im- mersion ; that Peter’s going up into the upper room denotes his seeking the things above; that the Apostles and disciples of our Lord are “ clean meat,” and the other particulars before mentioned ; as that John vi. is to be understood of doctrine. Nor ought any man in justice to impute this opinion to Ori- gen; since it is evident beyond all dispute, that he does not offer this as an interpretation, but only as an allegory; and declares in the very front of his discourse that he was “ not interpreting Scripture, but edifying the Church,” that is, making such anagogical glosses as might elevate the affec- tions or reform the morals of his hearers.
That Origen understood John vi., in the first place, of the Eucharist, and in the second place or anagogical sense only, of doctrine, we have a very direct proof from Homil. xiii. in Leyitic., fol. 87. col. 8, where having spoken of the Eucharist as an effectual propitiation, as “the Bread Which comes down from heaven and gives life to the world,” as the reader may see in the Appendix’, he soon after adds, ““We may other- wise understand it; for every word of God is bread;” for here again, as in the citation first produced by Dr. Whitby, he clearly speaks on a supposition, that the Eucharist was primarily meant in John vi., doctrine or precepts secondarily and remotely only.
And to give my reader a decisive proof, that no conclusion ought to be drawn against that sense of John vi. for which I now plead, from Origen’s allegorical flights; I desire it may be observed, that he uses the same liberty in relation to the
Ρ, Τοῖ, 73. 01.1.5. 4b. p. 10. Ap.
~
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 473
history of institution, that he does in relation to John vi. And I do with good reason presume, that it was not the intention of Origen nor of those against whom I argue, to prove that the words of institution are meant of instruction only. And though Dr. W. is willing to have John vi. to be understood primarily of doctrine and precepts; yet I cannot in charity believe, that he would serve the history of institu- tion in the same manner. And I suppose it will appear from the following passages, that Origen’s judgment was, that the words of institution and of John vi. carry the same sense; and that whosoever fulfils our Saviour’s precept in receiving the Eucharist does also receive the promise of Christ’s Flesh and Blood and [of] eternal Life mentioned in John vi., and that they who do not eat Christ’s Flesh and drink His Blood according to John vi. do not comply with the institution of this holy Sacrament. The words of Origen, to which I now appeal, are in his thirty-fifth Homily on St. Matthew’s Gospel; where he treats of our Saviour’s celebrating the first Eucha- rist, according to the narrative which St. Matthew gives us of this memorable fact, in the twenty-sixth chapter of his Gospel. Now in the 75th fol. col. 1. of this Homily, speak- ing of our Saviour’s preparing to eat the Passover with His disciples, he says, “We being under the virtue and spirit (not the letter) of the Law do fulfil all things, which are there commanded to be celebrated in a bodily manner, by cele- brating them spiritually; for we put away the old leaven of malice and wickedness, and we keep the new Passover with the unleayened bread of sincerity and truth; Christ Himself feasting with us according to the will of the Lamb, Who says, ‘Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have no Life in you. He Who takes away the sins of the world does also forbid the destroyer of all man- kind and not of Egypt only, to touch us; while we cele- brate the Passover with Him, and ascend, the Lord being with us, from the places below to the upper region in which is a guest-chamber, which is shewed to the disciples of Christ by the master of the family, that is, the intellect which is in every man: but let this upper room be large enough to receive Jesus, the Word and Wisdom and Truth of God, and in all respects the Son of God, Who cannot
SECT. Vi:
474 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
CHAP. be received but by those whose minds are enlarged.” He I. _ adds, that it must not only be “large” but “clean,” that it must be “in the City of God,” that is, the Church. And at the end of this page, “ We ought to know, that they who are taken up with feasting and secular cares do not go into the upper room, nor behold it’s greatness, nor consider it’s furniture ; nor do they celebrate the Passover with Jesus, nor do they receive the Bread of blessing nor the Cup of the New Testament from Him.” Here in the first words he supposes, that they who keep the Christian Passover do eat the Flesh of the Son of Man, according to the meaning of John vi; and that it was Christ’s will, in celebrating and instituting this new Passover, that we should eat this Flesh; and by eating this Flesh, have Life abiding in us. And in the last words he denies that worldly unprepared communicants do receive “ the Cup of the New Testament or the Bread of bless- ing.” So that ‘to eat the Flesh of the Son of Man’ and ‘ to receive the Cup of the New Testament or the Bread of bless- ing’ are reciprocal things; and he that does one does the other. Modern Divines think it the peculiar privilege of well-prepared communicants, that they eat the Flesh of Christ and drink His Blood, according to John vi. Origen declares that this is likewise their privilege, that they only eat the Bread of blessing and [drink] the Cup of the New Testament ; that is, they alone do truly receive the Eucharist. Modern Divines say, that this Flesh and Blood may be eaten and drunk extra cenam, in any act of religion; but Origen supposes that eating the Flesh and drinking the Blood, and eating the Bread and drinking the Cup, are the same action; and that none do it indeed, but they who come with suitable dis- positions. He speaks of both in the same cryptical manner ; and he does this last more clearly in the following words of the same Homily’; where after having recited the words of institution, he immediately subjoins, “The Bread, which God the Word confesses to be His Body, is the Word Which nourishes souls. The Word proceeding from God the Word, and the Bread from the heavenly Bread, Which is placed on that Table, of which it is written, ‘Thou hast prepared a Table before Me in spite of them that trouble Me; and ΤΊ fol. 76. col. 2, 8,
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 4.75
the Drink, which God the Word confesses to be His Blood, is that Word Which irrigates and exhilarates most notably the hearts of them who drink It; Which is in that Cup, of which it is written, ‘and Thy exhilarating Cup is very strong,’ (according to the LX Xs); and that Drink is the Cup of the true Vine,” he cites John xv. 1. I suppose neither Origen nor any other writer could ever more ex- pressly say that eating the Flesh of Christ according to John vi. denotes receiving His doctrine, than Origen here says the same of eating Christ’s Body and drinking His Blood in the Eucharist; and this passage is the more ob- servable, because Origen here is professedly speaking of the history of institution, and therefore one would think should give us what he thought to be the most proper meaning of that context. But he proceeds in the same strain, and at the foot of col. 3. he adds, “ And what Jesus said, when He took Bread, and likewise when He took the Cup, he that is a babe in Christ and carnal may understand in a common sense: but let him that is wiser inquire, from whom Jesus receives it; for He receives it from God the Giver, and He gives it to them that are worthy to receive the Bread and Cup.—‘ Moses gave you not bread, but My Father giveth you the true Bread from heaven.’” In which words he plainly asserts that what our Saviour promised, John vi., was actually given in the institution; and he supposes that they only who are worthy do receive the Euchar- istical Bread and Cup, and supposes them to be babes who - think otherwise. And therefore in his judgment, to receive the Eucharistical Body, and to eat the Flesh according to John vi., are the same thing. He presently adds, as follows ; « And Jesus always receives Bread from the Father, and gives thanks, and breaks it for them who keep the feast with Him. And He gives it to His disciples according to every one’s capacity, and says, ‘ Take ye, eat ye ;? and He shews, when He nourishes them with this Bread, that it is His own Body; since He is the Word Which we stand in need of, both now and when it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God.—If there- fore we will receive the Bread of blessing from Christ Who uses to give it, let us go into the city, into the house of a
5. [Kal τὸ ποτήριόν Σου μεθύσκον ws κράτιστον. }
SECT. We
Ps. xxii. 5.
John vi. 37.
CHAP. Il.
476 JOHN Vi. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
certain man, where Jesus keeps the Passover with His Dis- ciples, when His friends have prepared it: and let us go to the upper part of the house, which is large, furnished, and prepared ; where [Jesus] receiving the Cup from the Father, and giving thanks, gives It to those who go up with Him, saying, ‘ Drink ye, for It is the Blood of the New Testament,’ Which is drunk by His Disciples and poured out for the remission of sins committed by those who drink It. If you ask how It is poured out, earnestly consider, when you say this, that which is written, that the love of God is poured out in your hearts.” And in the Greek works of Origen‘, after having said, that what our Saviour gave to Judas at the Eu- charist was ὁμογενὲς, of the same sort that He gave to the other Apostles, to them for salvation, to him for condemna- tion ; he adds, “ Let the Bread and Wine be apprehended by the simple, according to the common receiving in the Επι- charist (Gr. κατὰ τὴν κοινοτέραν περὶ Εὐχαριστίας ἐκδοχὴν) ; but by those who are more profoundly instructed, accord- ing to a more Divine explication or promise (Gr. ἐπαγγελίαν) and concerning the nutritive Word of Truth.” It is evident to a demonstration, that he gives the same turn to the history of institution that he does to John yi. It is cer- tain, that he could not intend by these glosses to set aside the necessity of the outward Eucharist; he himself owns that “the eleven Apostles received it to salvation,’ and that therefore it is a saving ordinance of religion; nor was he ever understood by the ancients to be guilty of any heterodoxy upon this head of theology. They, who have so critically examined and so severely censured Ori- gen upon other accounts, would never have spared him for so unsound an opinion, if they had thought that there had been any grounds for suspicion; for as the ancients universally believed the necessity of this Sacrament, so they would never have borne with him, if he had so notoriously opposed the known sense of the Christian Church. And therefore when he thus explains the institution of the Eu- charist, he must be supposed either to mean, that what we receive there is not the Body of Christ, in itself considered, but by virtue of the words pronounced over it; and that there- t vol. ii. p. 411.
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 477
fore we must receive the words as well as the bread; nay, we must have a much greater concern to digest the words by faith than to masticate the bread with our mouths. And this agrees well enough with what he says in the last cita- tion but one from him, which my reader will find in the Ap- pendix", where he says, “The Bread is profitable by means of the Word spoken over it ;’” and I have before shewed, that we never do so effectually receive the whole Word of God as in the Eucharist. And this indeed must be his meaning in the citation just now mentioned, where he supposes that they who are “ more profoundly instructed” do, by the Bread and Wine, understand “the nutritive Word of Truth ;” which is the doctrine likewise of his master Clement. Or else it must be said, that, these discourses being delivered to a pro- miscuous auditory consisting of catechumens and chance- comers as well as communicants, it was not thought proper to speak of the mysteries of the Eucharist in such a manner, as that they who were not yet admitted to the Communion might fully know the nature of it. And I suppose that this ac- count will appear very probable to him that considers the following words of this writer in his ninth Homily on Le- viticus, fol. 81. “ Thou that art come to the High-Priest, dwell not upon the blood of the flesh but learn rather the Blood of the Word, and hearken to Him Who says to thee, ‘ This is My Blood Which is shed for the remission of sins’. He that is ini- tiated in the mysteries knows both the Flesh and the Blood of the Word of God. Let us not therefore dwell on these things, which are well known to them that are instructed,” that is, to the communicants, “and which cannot be explained to the ignorant,” that is, to the catechumens and infidels. By “the Blood of the Word,” I apprehend, he clearly meant doctrine and instruction ; and yet he certainly speaks of the Eucharist, for he bids us “hearken to Him Who says, ‘This is My Blood.” He does not directly and in words at length speak of the Eucharistical Blood, but only of the natural or carnal, and of the allegorical blood, that is, doctrine; which may be said too of some of the other citations to this purpose. And he hints his reason for it, viz. that his hearers were partly such as were “ instructed,” and so had no occasion for further infor- Sok pels sip:
SECT. We
CHAP. Il.
478 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
mation in this point; and partly the “ ignorant” or unbaptized, who according to the discipline of those ages were not per-
mitted to hear any discourse, whereby they might come to — the clear knowledge of the Eucharist before their time. And —
therefore when Origen, in the course of his Homilies, was obliged to say something of the words in John vi., or in the institution, he thought it sufficient to say so much of them,
that the catechumens might not think that they stood for
nothing, and yet to say no more than what might be heard by the unbaptized; and the communicants were, by the public Liturgy and by private and personal application, not only taught the nature of this mystery, but the reason why it was not to be expected that they should hear it publicly divulged in sermons or homilies, pronounced in common to all that were pleased to be present at the Christian assem- blies. Perhaps he nowhere in his Homilies speaks more plainly of the Eucharist than in the words I have more than once cited from him, and which must now be repeated’, viz. “If these things are referred to the great Mystery, you will find that that commemoration has the effect of the great Propitiation. If you reflect on that Bread Which comes down from heaven and gives Life to the world, on that Shew-Bread Which God hath set forth as propitiatory through faith in His Blood; and if you look to that commemoration, of which our Lord says, ‘ Do this as a memorial of Me ;’ you will find that is the only memorial which renders God propitious to men.” Now though no words can more plainly speak Origen’s opinion of the Eucharistical Sacrifice to them who are well acquainted with the phrases and texts of Scripture here used ; yet I am persuaded, my impartial reader will agree with me, that one who knew nothing of Christianity but what he had heard in such Homilies as these of Origen could never, from hearing these words once and away or by having them ten times repeated to him, penetrate into the nature of the Chris- tian Eucharist. They could not from these words in them- selves considered, without being acquainted with the process of the Eucharistical solemnity, know whether Origen meant natural or figurative bread, or in what sense it came down from heaven, or how it was a memorial, or of what it was a Y b. p. 10. Ap.
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 479
commemoration. And it is observable, that he turns short SECT. upon his hearers and excuses himself from any further explana- εξ tion by presently adding, “ But it is not convenient to en- large on these things; because it is sufficient that they may
be understood by remembrance,” that is, by recollecting what
they had formerly been taught upon this head, presently after Baptism, and upon their first admission to the Eu- charist. Communicants might sufficiently understand what
he meant; and he intended to instruct no other persons in
this mystery. And so he proceeds to tell the catechumens,
that “ every word of God is bread,” as is before mentioned.
And indeed it seems probable that this was the usual rule by which preachers governed themselves, while their auditories were known to consist of infidels or almost-Christians as
well as of those who had received Baptism. And this is
the account which he himself seems to me to give of this matter.
I have been the more large in examining the citations of Origen, because they seem to give more countenance to the cause of Dr. Whitby and Dr. Clagett than any thing else to be met with in antiquity. And now let us briefly reflect on what we find Origen to have said in this matter.
It is freely owned that Origen does several times explain Origen’s eating and drinking Christ’s Flesh and Blood in John vi. by pile receiving His doctrine. But,
1. He does in the same manner explain eating the Bread and drinking the Cup in the history of the institution; now it is very certain, that the words of institution are meant of the Eucharist, and that Origen himself did so understand them. When therefore he takes no more liberty with John vi. than he does with the words of institution, it does by no means follow, that by eating Christ’s Flesh and drinking His Blood in John vi. he believed that receiving Christ’s doc- trine was primarily meant, any more than that the words of institution, by bidding us ‘ eat this Bread,’ ‘ drink this Cup,’ require us only to believe His Gospel.
2. It is certain, that when Origen gives this meaning either to John vi., or to the words of institution, he gives it as an allegorical remote sense only. All will easily believe this as to the words of institution. And the whole process of his
CHAP. Il.
480 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
discourse in those Homilies, from which Dr. Clagett and Dr. Whitby have taken their citations, is a clear demon- stration that he was wholly on the allegorical strain, when he explained John vi. by faith and doctrine. Nay, I have shewed that Origen himself does declare as much. Since then this is by Origen himself confessed to be the allegorical sense only, therefore it cannot be the first and direct sense, after which only I am now searching. So that the very citations produced by Dr. Clagett and Dr. Whitby are, if we observe their connection with what goes before and follows, a proof that Origen did not look upon this gloss to be the proper sense of John vi.
3. It is very clear that he does over and again apply John vi. to the Eucharist, without giving us any grounds to suspect that he does it in an anagogical or improper sense; nay, he does it sometimes in such a manner, that we have good reason to conclude he took this to be the primary meaning of our Saviour. I will here add one instance not yet mentioned *. “ Baptism was formerly enigmatical in the cloud and the sea; but now regeneration by water and the Spirit is in open view. Then manna was the enigmatical food; but now the Flesh of the Son of God is true meat in open view, as He Himself hath said, ‘My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.’” I suppose no man can rationally doubt, but that as he speaks of Baptism in the first clause, so he speaks of the Eucharist in the other; and he calls this latter Sacrament the Flesh of Christ, as he could not have done, if Christians in that age had used by ‘the Flesh of Christ’ to understand doctrine and mere precepts. And he supports this name of the Sacrament by John vi. 55, which had been impertinent if it had not then been generally allowed that this text was meant of the Eucharist. And it will soon appear from St. | Augustine, that ‘to receive the Flesh of the Son of Man’ was a phrase commonly used among the African Christians for ‘receiving the Sacrament,’ as we now speak.
4. And it deserves our particular reflection, that neither Origen nor any other writer does ever industriously and de- signedly make it their business to prove, that John vi. was to be understood of the Eucharist, as some of them at least
xe. p. 10..Ρ.
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 481
would have done, if it had been a disputable point; but when SECT. they apply John vi. to this Sacrament, they speak of it as a thing which all then allowed; but it appears by the two first citations from Origen, that when he would have this text to be understood of doctrine and precepts, he thought it neces- sary to spend many words upon it, as being a notion not so generally received. And I need not tell my intelligent reader, that it is not so much my concern to prove that I have Origen on my side, as that the Church or generality of Christians did in those ages take John vi. to be meant of the Holy Sacrament. And I cannot but be of opinion, that both Origen, and especially the Christians, to whom he preached, were in my sentiment as to this matter.
If indeed Origen, when he says, that “The Bread and Wine may be apprehended by the more simple, according to the common receiving in the Sacrament, but by them who are more profoundly instructed, concerning the nutritive Word :” if, I say, by these words he intended to express his opinion that men may fulfil the institution of the Eucharist by believing the Gospel without receiving the symbols; I conceive this opinion of his ought to be abhorred by all men that are judicious and of a true Catholic spirit; but it is evident, that these words were spoken in relation to the Bread and Wine administered by our Saviour, when He celebrated the first Eucharist, and so cannot serve the turn of Dr. Whitby or his followers.
There is indeed a passage of Origen, on Matt. xv. p. 253. vol. i. of Monsieur Huet’s edition, which I cannot pretend to understand. If any learned person, who dislikes the doctrine for which I am now an advocate, shall please to form an argument against me from those words, I shall not despair of returning a proper answer ; but that place does not at all favour the opinion of Dr. Whitby. And I apprehend it will ‘be no hard matter to prove, that whoever undertakes to maintain any modern notion from those words will find himself disappointed.
The next writer cited by Dr. Whitby, is Eusebius Ceesari- Allegation ensis”, who introduces our Saviour saying, “ Do not think I πετῶν cis
_ #{Contra Marcellum, De Ecclesias- gelica, ed. Paris. 1628. Μὴ yap τὴν tica Theologia, lib. iii. cap. 12. p. 180, σάρκα, ἣν περίκειμαι, voulonté Me λέ- appended to the Demonstratio Evan- ‘yew, ὡς δέον αὐτὴν ἐσθίειν' μηδὲ τὸ
JOHNSON, 1}
4.82 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
oHAP. speak of the Flesh with which I am clothed, as if you must eat
ἘΠΕ and re- felled.
~—— that, nor that 1 command you to drink My corporeal sensible
Blood; but know well, that the words, which I have spoken
to you, are Spirit and Life. So that the very words and
speeches of Christ are the Flesh and Blood’ Now I con-
ceive, that by this last sentence his meaning is, either that the — Word of Christ makes the Sacrament the Body and Blood ; just so our Saviour says, “1 am the Resurrection and the Life ;” He is the efficient cause of the resurrection, as His words are of the Sacramental Body and Blood: or else his design was to say, that the main or principal thing required on our part in receiving the Sacrament is to receive all the holy instruc- © tions which He has given us. However, that Eusebius did — not believe that bare words and precepts were intended by — our Saviour in John vi. is sufficiently clear from what he speaks in this very discourse*, that when our Saviour says, — ‘the flesh profiteth nothing, “He did not speak of the Flesh which He had assumed, but of His mystical Body and Blood”.” And this indeed is his most probable meaning in these words, and those cited next before, viz., that, as Origen expresses it, “ Not the consecrated food” or the material Bread, which is His mystical Body, “but the Word spoken over it is profitable.” I conceive ‘the mystical Body’ can be understood of nothing but the material Eucharist, in this place: the Church is indeed Christ’s mystical Body; but as I am not aware that any man ever asserted that Christ by His Flesh and Blood in John vi. did intend His Church, so it is utterly inconsistent with common sense so to under- stand it; for the Flesh which Christ speaks of John vi. “was given for the Life of the world,’ which cannot be applied to the Church. Nor am I sensible, that Christ’s doc- trine is ever called His ‘mystical Body; and if it were,
a
i
is to make this great man directly contradict himself.
αἰσθητὸν καὶ σωματικὸν αἷμα πίνειν ge τὴν σάρκα καὶ τὸ aiua. | ὑπολαμβάνετέ Με προστάττειν. ᾽Αλλ᾽ ᾿ 79.
εὖ ἴστε, ὅτι τὰ ῥήματά Μου ἃ λελάληκα > οὐ περὶ ἧς ἀνείληφε σαρκὸς διελέ ὑμῖν, πνεῦμά ἐστι καὶ ζωή ἐστι᾿ ὥστε, γετο, περὶ δὲ τοῦ μυστικοῦ σώματός τε αὐτὰ εἶναι τὰ ῥήματα καὶ τοὺς λόγους καὶ αἵματος.
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 483,
conclude therefore, that if Eusebius be not a witness to the doctrine which I now assert, yet neither is he against it.
St. Athanasius is next cited by Dr. Whitby, for saying, “The words which Christ spake are not carnal, but spiritual ; for how could His Body have sufficed for meat, that It should be made the food of the whole world?” Thus he maims a paragraph, which the reader may peruse more at large in my Appendix‘; and yet in the words, as cited by the Doctor, there is nothing that does at all affect the doctrine of oral or Sacramental manducation. Nor can I conceive to what purpose Dr. Whitby and Dr. Clagett produced these words ; they are indeed directly against transubstantiation, but are an illustrious proof of the doctrine of the Sacrament which prevailed in the primitive Church; and particularly, they are an evidence that he understood John vi. of the Eucha- rist. For this great man declares that “Christ predicates of Himself,” (that is, of His Sacramental Body ; for the Fathers use the word ‘ Christ’ or ‘ Christ’s Flesh and Blood’ promis- cuously, as our Saviour Himself uses ‘I’ and ‘ Me’ in this chapter as words equivalent to ‘My Flesh and Blood,’) “both Flesh and S§ pirit ;’ and therefore was very far from the opi- nion of these Doctors, that Christ meant nothing but pre- epts and instruction by Flesh and Blood: though he says, “Christ speaks not of carnal things but spiritual ;”’ yet he firms too, that there is something ‘seen,’ something ‘ in- isible.’ By Spirit and Life he understands “ spiritual and upernal food, heavenly nutriment, distributed among all as a preservative to the resurrection to eternal life.’ And he as formerly been cited as from Mr. Mede, calling the Eu- harist “heavenly incorruptible Bread,” clearly alluding to the words of our Saviour, “This is the Bread which cometh own from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die.” Po this let me add those decisive words‘, ‘“‘ We have the first- fruits of the future repast in this present life, in the Com- union of the Body of our Lord, as He hath said, ‘ The Bread hich I will give is My Flesh,’ &c., for the Flesh of the Lord [ls a reviving Spirit.” No writer can speak more directly nd positively than St. Athanasius does, for oral manducation eing meant in John vi. And I must profess myself amazed
¢ a, p. 17. Ap. Abi p. 17. Ap: 112
SECT. We
Allegation
from Atha- nasius con- sidered and refelled.
John vi. 50,
CHAP. τ ἘΠ
Allegations from St. Jerome considered and re- felled.
484 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
to see two such learned men as Dr. Whitby and Dr. Clagett suppose that he favours the contrary opinion.
The next writer cited by both these Doctors is St. Jerome; the treatise cited by them is spurious, I mean their Commen- taries on the Psalms; for Erasmus and all editors since his time, and Dr. Cave our learned countryman, give them over as the work of some later hand. I will only add that this pretended St. Jerome says, that John vi. “may be under- © stood of the mysteries.” This is contrary to what Dr. Whitby — asserts, which is, that our Saviour is “not to be understood — of Sacramental manducation.” The true St. Jerome does — say*, that “ Christ’s Flesh and Blood may be eaten and drunk, 7 not only in the mysteries, but in reading the Scripture.” But i he first fairly tells his reader that he is speaking juzta ava- yoynv; which makes me believe that other Fathers, when ᾿ they speak as St. Jerome here does, are to be understood — anagogically ; and I shall not enlarge on these words, be- — cause they are in effect what Origen had said before. Let us observe then, how he mixes the anagogical and the proper sense of John vi. and of the institution, in those words’, * Let us understand, that the Bread, which Christ brake and gave to His disciples, was the Body of our Lord and Saviour— if therefore the Bread which came down from heaven is the Body of our Lord, and the Wine He gave to His dis- ciples, the Blood Which was shed for the remission of sins— let us go with our Lord into the upper room furnished and clean, and let us receive from Him the Cup of the New Tes-) tament from above ; and celebrating the Passover with Him, let us be exhilarated with the wine of sobriety ; for the king- dom of God is not meat and drink, &c. Moses gave us not the true Bread, but our Lord Jesus, Who is Himself both the Convivator and the Feast, that eats with us and is eaten bj us.” He very evidently speaks of the Sacrament, and applie to it the title of the “ Bread which came down from heaven,’ and of “the true Bread,” which he took from John vi.; and ye he gives such an anagogical dash to his discourse, that if 1 were not plain to a demonstration, that he speaks of the in stitution as well as of the context in dispute, this would b thought an unanswerable evidence against me. But fro
* On Ecclesiast. cap. 3. fk. p. 28. Ap:
~
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 485
this instance it appears, that the ancients used the same lati- SECT. tude in relation to the words of institution, that they do in - ἐς speaking of John vi. And it is observable that St. Jerome, when these words came from him, had Origen’s Homily on
the twenty-sixth chapter of St. Matthew, ver. 26, 27, which
I just now quoted from him, lying before him, or fresh in his memory. And by the turn which he gives them, it seems pretty plain that he took the words of Origen asI do. But
St. Jerome fully delivers his testimony of the proper sense
of John vi. when he says of ‘wheat’, that “out of it the heavenly Bread is made, of which our Lord declares, ‘My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed.’” And
from all this put together, I conclude that he certainly under- stood John vi. to be most properly understood of the Eucha-
rist ; and it is for the primary and proper sense that I am
now arguing.
Dr. Whitby proceeds to St. Augustine; and Dr. Clagett Allegations too, many years before, had cited to the same purpose those je words of his, “ Why providest®” (I should rather say, ‘ why Considered preparest’) “thou [thy] teeth and stomach? believe, and flled. thou hast eaten‘; for to believe in Him is to eat the Living Bread.” He was evidently speaking to some ignorant care- less Africans, who were more concerned to come to the Sa- crament with clean mouths and empty stomachs than with hearts filled with faith and holy affections; and all that the Father can mean is, that faith is more necessary than any external preparation for eating and drinking the Sacrament to our soul’s health. It is very evident, that the Father speaks to them, who came to Church in order to communi- cate and had to that purpose kept themselves fasting. Now I have that opinion of Dr. Whitby, that he will not suppose that it was St. Augustine’s intention to send these men home again without receiving the Sacrament, or that he designed to convince them that oral manducation was unnecessary, that it was sufficient for them to eat the Body of Christ by an
=m. p- 29. Ap. does not mean, she did not touch the
h The Latin is, ‘Ut quid paras’ &c. hem of Christ’s garment, but that she
i Just so he says of the woman that believed as well as touched. So St. had the issue of blood, ‘‘ Tetigit, id est, Augustine intended not to say, that we credidit,’’ she touched, that is, she be- need not eat if we believe, but that we lieved, Conc. 1. on Psalm Jxxviii. He must believe as well as eat.
CHAP. ML
486 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
internal act of faith only. He therefore speaks to them upon supposition that they were to eat and drink the symbols; and to such a person any Bishop or Priest may say, ‘ Believe, and thou hast eaten; and if thou believest not, thou hast not eaten.’ The question is, whether this holy Father would have used these words to any that were not actual communicants, and told them that they might eat Christ’s Flesh and drink His Blood, without the assistance of Church or Priest, in their own closets or at their own tables, by the exercise of their faith or by any other act of religion. Nothing else will serve the purpose of Dr. Whitby; and I am much mistaken, if St. Augustine ever dropped any words that look this way. Dr. Whitby refers us to St. Augustine’s twenty-sixth Tract on St. John, where we have the following words‘, “ To believe in Him is to eat the Living Bread. He that believes eats, because he is inwardly replenished; any one may come in, and go to the Altar, and receive the Sacrament with an un- willing mind; he cannot believe but with his own consent.” And in these words again he strongly affirms the necessity of faith in order to a proper eating and drinking the Sacra- ment, but still he speaks of and to actual communicants ; and the question still is, whether the Father would have said so to one that wilfully abstained. And it will soon appear that he could not so speak according to his own principles. Dr. Clagett further cites St. Augustine for saying}, “The Sacrament of this is taken by some to life, by some to de- struction ; but the thing itself, whereof this is a Sacrament, is to all for life, to none for death.” The reader is to observe that ‘the thing itself’ here spoken of is unity, for that was what the holy Father had just before been treating οὗ; and I cannot at present conceive, how they that believe these words to be a proof that John vi. is not meant of the Sacra- ment would form their argument or draw their conclusion from these words. And I have no reason to apprehend that it is possible for them to make these words serve their purpose.
Dr. Clagett cites St. Augustine for saying™, “To receive the Body of Christ truly and not by the Sacrament, this is to remain in Christ.” But the Doctor takes the liberty of |
EL pod. Apr ΝΡ BRB ΤΑ; m F. p. 36. Ap.
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 487
turning, non Sacramento tenus, ‘not by the Sacrament,’ which really signifies, ‘not in the Sacrament’ or sign ‘ only;’ so, ore tenus, ‘in words only; titulo tenus, ‘in name,’ or title ‘only ;’ aurium tenus, ‘ with the ears only.’ “To eat the Body of Christ truly,” in the sense of St. Augustine and the ancients, is to eat It internally and with faith, as has been shewed ; and to do it ‘ by the Sacrament only’ is a phrase inti- mating the reception of the ‘ external sign’ (so St. Augustine sometimes explains Sacrament) without faith and other in- ternal preparations.
But the most learned and ingenious Dr. Clagett, whose labours against Dr. Owen and the Papists will immortalize his name, does confess that “ St. Augustine in writing against the Pelagians owns this context in St, John’s Gospel to be a direct and proper command to receive the Eucharist.” There- fore I wish this excellent man had never studied to make this Father contradict himself. But I think it is very evident that he has laboured in vain, for I am not sensible that he has produced any passage from St. Augustine or any other Father but what has been considered and answered; for as to what concerns St. Augustine’s denying that the wicked eat the Body of Christ, that has formerly been accounted for under another head"; and as to the passage from St. Augustine, De Doctrina Christiana®, the Doctor uses it against transub- stantiation only, and indeed it could serve him to no other purpose. It is true, St. Augustine (and the same may be said of several others) does understand what goes before those words in the fifty-first verse of John vi., viz., “ And the Bread which I give is My Flesh,” &c., they understand, I say, our Saviour sometimes, in what goes before, to speak of His giving the Holy Ghost: so in Tom. ii. p. 703. Tract 26. on St. John’s Gospel, Daturus Dominus Spiritum Sanctum dixit se panem, qui de celo descendit. And of this I suppose he is to be understood in his second book De Sermone Domini in Monte; where interpreting those words in the Lord’s Prayer, “Give us this day our daily bread,” by ‘daily bread’ he understands the things necessary for this life, or the Sacrament of Christ’s Body, or “that spiritual Bread of which our Lord says, ‘I am the Bread of Life;’” for He is
® chap. ii. sect. v. versus finem. ee, p: dt. Ap.
SECT. ¥.
488 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
CHAP, with us by the Spirit. And it was not incongruous by what Il. went before those words, where He declares “ His Flesh to be Bread,” to understand the promise of that Holy Spirit, whereby His Sacramental Body became what It was. But this does not in the least serve the purpose of any modern glossators; for St. Augustine does not understand either doctrine or any spiritual action of ours, or the natural Body of Christ, to be understood by our Saviour in this passage ; and the words from verse 51. forward, he perpetually took to be meant of Sacramentally communicating, though not
orally or externally only. St. Augus- And this I look upon to be the common judgment of the tine gives ancient Fathers; however, this was beyond all doubt the
testimony ὃ very sentiment of St. Augustine, as appears from the followmg
at John citations : firstP, ‘ Does the flesh give Life? The Lord Him- vneantor 561} said, when He was commending to us this earth, (that is, the Eucha- the Sacramental Body,) ‘It is the Spirit that giveth Life but the flesh profiteth not.’ Therefore when you reverentially approach any earth, look not on it as earth,” &c. And in the next page? he introduces Christ, as saying, “ Understand what I say in a spiritual manner, you are not to eat that Body which you 566 ; I have commended to you a Sacrament ; it will give you Life, if spiritually understood; though it is necessary to be celebrated in a visible manner, yet it must invisibly be apprehended :” in which words he professedly expounds John vi. 53, 63. Again’, “‘ How are we to under- stand that which is said, ‘If any man eat of this Bread he shall live for ever? Can we admit of those [to live for ever] of whom the Apostle says, that they ‘eat and drink their own damnation?’” This is the main, I may say, the only difficulty that I am aware of, in maintaining that John vi. is to be understood of the Eucharist; and I am not sensible of any reason that others have to oppose this sense, but that they imagine, that if the words are so taken, then he who externally receives the Eucharist cannot miss of Life eternal: and for this reason it is thought safest by most now-a-days, to deny that this context is to be understood of the Eucharist. You see St. Au- gustine was pressed with this difficulty ; he was fully sensible of the force of this objection ; and therefore, if he had not been
Ps. p. 33. Ap. I. 12. 4s, Ὁ. 83. Ap. 1. 21. T t. p. 84. Ap.
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 489
fully convinced that this context was to be understood of the Eucharist, he would infallibly have let us known it on this oc- casion. If his judgment had not been perfectly determined in the point, he would have been glad to make use of the evasion which is now with too many thought to be a certain truth, viz., that Christ Jesus does not here speak of oral or Sacra- mental manducation; which had been an effectual way to cut the knot, and to escape the objection with which he was pinched. And we are not therefore to doubt but he would have made this answer, if he had not been under an absolute persuasion that he should thereby have done injury to the truth. And therefore instead of saying that this context was not meant of Sacramental eating and drinking, he answers it upon a direct presumption of the contrary: for, says he, “There is a certain manner of eating that Flesh and drinking that Blood; and he who eats and drinks in that manner, he dwells in Christ and Christ in him.” And I have before shewed what the ‘ manner’ was, here meant by St. Augustine, namely, eating and drinking the Sacrament inwardly as well as outwardly, with faith as well as with the mouth. In other places he is altogether as express for understanding John vi. of the Holy Sacrament; as for instance, where he asks‘, “ What is the Bread of the kingdom of God but He Who says, ‘I am the Living Bread which came down from heaven ?” prepare not your mouth but your heart. This is the com- mendation of this Supper. See, we believe in Christ, we re- ceive with faith, in receiving we know what is the subject of our meditation. We take a little, yet we are replenished in heart.” And againt, “ We have heard the veracious Master, the Divine Redeemer, commending to us our own ransom, His Blood ; for He spake to us of His own Body and Blood; the one He called ‘Meat,’ the other ‘Drink,’ which is the Sacrament of the faithful; for we have heard our Lord saying, ‘ It is the Spirit that quickeneth.’” I will produce no more proofs of St. Augustine’s opinion at large, but refer my reader to those passages", which do as clearly speak St. Augustine’s judgment as any other which I have produced in words at length trans- lated into English. I will only add two paragraphs, which do not so much declare what this Father’s opinion was, as the
κα. p. 34, Ap. ‘ w. p. 34. Ap. 1 f. p. 31. Ap.; C. p.35. Ap.
SECT.
CHAP. Il.
490 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
general sense of Christians in that age, in the Church of Africa at least. The first is that, where he says*, “ Christ does not commit Himself tocatechumens. Askacatechumen, ‘Dost thou believe?’ He answers, ‘I do,’ and signs himself with the cross of Christ. He is not ashamed of the cross of Christ; but bears it in his forehead. Let us ask him, ‘ Dost thou eat the Flesh and drink the Blood of the Son of Man?’ He does not know what we mean, for Christ hath not committed Himself to him; catechumens do not know what Christians receive.” Every one knows that what the ancients did most industriously hide from the catechumens was the nature of the Eucharist. And to keep them in the dark as to this particular, they did not per- mit them to be informed in the proper sense or primary mean- ing of John vi.; and here we may learn the reason why they did this, namely, because they believed that John vi. was to be understood of the Eucharist. Our modern Divines, who by Flesh and Blood mean doctrine, when they come to explain those words, “ the Bread which I will give is My Flesh,” do own that these words are especially meant of the “ belief ot our Saviour’s Death and the benefits of it ;” and therefore do suppose that this is the condition on which eternal Life depends. Now the ancients were clearly of another mind ; for they taught men before they were baptized to believe in the Cross of Christ, and yet did not on this account think them in a state of salvation. And we of this age have been endeavouring to persuade men that what the primitive Church taught the catechumens is the very perfection of our religion, the principal or, in effect, the only condition for the obtaining eternal Life. The other passage I had in my eye is that in which he informs us’, that “the Punic Christians do rightly call Baptism nothing but Salvation, and the Sacrament of the Body of Christ nothing but Life. And whence have they this but from an ancient and, I think, Apostolical tradition, by which they hold it to be a principle innate in the Church of Christ, that the Kingdom [of Heaven] or Salvation cannot be had without Baptism. And what do they hold, who call the Sacrament of the Lord’s Table, Life, but that which was said, ‘I am the Bread of Life ;’ and ‘Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood ye have no Life in you?” * h. p. 32, Ap. YP: p. 36: Ap.
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 491
This is a most ample testimony that the African Christians did believe John vi. to be meant of the Sacrament; and it seems this way of speaking was of so long standing, that St. Augustine thought it an “ Apostolical tradition, an innate principle” of Christianity. Nothing greater could be said in behalf of this doctrine.
Thus I have examined the citations alleged by these two very learned men; and as they reckon upon seven Fathers on their side, so I am pretty well assured they have not one. St. Augustine is a flaming and copious evidence against them. St. Jerome, St. Athanasius, Tertullian, and Clement of Alex- andria, are clearly enough for the truth which I assert. Ori- gen, rightly understood, gives no real support to their cause, but rather countenances what I believe to be the true sense of John vi. And even Eusebius says, that John vi. is to be understood of the “mystical Body ;” by which he cannot mean the Church, but the Eucharistical Body of Christ. I will proceed to shew,
(2.) That the primitive Church and Fathers did generally take John vi. to be meant of the Sacrament. Theodoret is very clear in those words?: “Our Lord did not promise to give His invisible Nature, but His Body; ‘for the Bread [which] I will give is My Flesh;’ and in the delivery of the Divine mysteries, taking the symbol, He said, ‘This is My Body.’” He understood John vi. and the institution to be meant of the same Body. Cyril of Alexandria is a very willing and copious evidence: who*, mentioning “the unbloody Sacrifice of the loaves,” adds, ‘‘by it we are blest, eating the Bread ‘which came down from heayen.” In which words he ap- plies John vi. 32 and 50 to the Holy Eucharist. Again, he styles it “the heavenly Life-giving Sacrifice by which this mortal flesh puts on incorruption ;” which he could not say of the Eucharist on any other grounds but those words
Theseseven Fathers not against this sense, rather directly
or it.
That John vi. was generally understood of the Eucharist.
Theodoret.
Cyril Alex. and third general Council.
of our Saviour, “ He that eateth of this Bread shall live for John vi. 58.
ever.” He expresses himself more fully still to this pur- pose “, where designedly treating on John vi. he says, “ Christ did not there shew the manner of eating His Flesh but the advantage of it, and required [His hearers] to believe rather
2 h. p. 46. Ap. > e. p. 44. Ap: a ¢, p. 43. Ap. ¢ f. p. 44. Ap.
CHAP. II.
John vi. 53.
John vi. 57.
‘as ourselves, (as also the precious Blood), but receiving it
492 JOHN Vi. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
. .
than to be inquisitive ;” and then applies the words of insti-
tution to John vi. “He brake the Bread, and gave it to them who believed, saying, ‘This is My Body: you see He declares not the manner of the mystery to them who were ignorant and refused to believe without demur; but He is found of them who already believed;” and citing those words, “ Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man ye have no Life in you,’ he immediately subjoims, “They remain wholly destitute of a holy and happy life, who receive not the Son by the mystical eulogy; that is, the Eucharist. And at another place 4, speaking of John vi. 63, our Saviour “calls the [Sacramental] Flesh ‘the Spirit,’ not denying it to be Flesh; but because it is united to It [the Spirit] and receives all its efficacy, and therefore ought to be called by that Name ; and elsewhere‘, “Christ is with us by His Flesh, which quickens us by the Spirit.” But those words | of his, and of the whole Synod of Alexandria, and which are repeated by Cyril in his explanation of the eleventh Anathe- matism‘, are of the greatest force and authority, as being read and approved by the third General Council, held at Ephesus ; they are as follows’: “ We celebrate the unbloody Life-giving Sacrifice in the Churches, believing that which lies in open view to be the Body, not of common man, such
rather as Christ’s own Body, and as the Blood of the Word, Which guickeneth all things; for common flesh cannot give Life ; and of this our Saviour is a witness, saying, ‘The Flesh profiteth not, but it is the Spirit Which quickeneth ;’ for be- cause it is made the Word’s own Flesh, therefore it is con- ceived to be quickening, and is so; as our Saviour Himself} says, ‘As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the}, Father, so he that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me.’”! Cyril himself in his letter to the monks", having recited}; some part of these words, adds, “The chorus of the Fathers} ; is of our mind,” (he means the Fathers of the General Coun cil of Ephesus,) “and Proclus, who adorns the throne of Con stantinople'.” And it is observable that the Orientalists di
dh. p. 44. Ap. δ]. p. 44. Ap. © i. p. 44. Ap. h Binius, vol. ii. p. 651. f Binius, vol]. ii. p. 440. ἱ [ταῦτα φρονεῖ μεθ᾽ ἡμῶν ὁ φιλόχρισ J...
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 493
not deny these words to be understood of the Eucharist, as SECT. Cyril himself sufficiently hints in his defence of the eleventh bs Anathematism ; for he takes notice, that the main of what Nestorius and his party objected as to this point was, that
“the Deity was not eaten*;” which indeed gives it for granted, that Christ speaks of Sacramental manducation.
For the Deity may be eaten by faith, as well as the Body
and Blood; so that it is evident both parties took it for granted, that John vi. was meant of Sacramental manduca-
tion; and in fine, both Church and heretics then agreed that
our Saviour treats of the Eucharist in this chapter. St. Chry- Chrysos- sostom expresses his opinion, when he calls the Sacramental “™ Cup! “the Life-giving Blood and the cause of Life ;’ when
he says ™, that the Sacramental Body “‘is full of Life ;” and in
those very many places where we have seen him affirming,
that the Divine grace and Holy Spirit descends on the sa-
cred symbols: but further he directly declares his sense of
this context, when he says”, “ Christ drank of the Cup, that
they who heard Him say these things might not say, ‘ what
then, do we drink Blood and eat Flesh,’ and so be disturbed
on this occasion; for when He discoursed of these things,
many were offended at His sayings ;” where he refers evi- dently to John vi. 61, and therefore takes it for certain, that Christ is there speaking of the Eucharist. Again °, speaking
of John vi. 63, he says (as before cited), “We must take all
these things in a spiritual manner ; they are Spirit and Life,
that is, they are divine and spiritual; what then, is it not
His Flesh? yes, certainly—wWe ought not to judge by what
we see, but to look into the mystery with our internal eyes.”
And Gaudentius, speaking of the Eucharist, says”, “This Gaudentius is our provision for our journey, by which we are subsisted
and nourished in this life, until departing this world we go
to Him; on which account our Saviour said, ‘ Except ye eat
the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have
no Life in you.’” Ambrose gives very full evidence in this Ambrose.
Tos τῶν ἁγίων πατέρων xopds, καὶ αὐ. odpxa;’’—Binius, vol. ii. p. 469.] τὸς δὲ ὁ νυνὶ τὸν τῆς ἁγίας Κωνσταν- 1 p. p. 39. Ap.
τινουπολιτῶν ἐκκλησίας κατακοσμήσας αν 41. Ap. θρόνον---Πρόκλο-.} 5". 5, p. 40. Ap.
k [“‘O τρώγων Me, κἀκεῖνος ζήσε- ° y. p. 40. Ap. ται" τίνα ἐσθίομεν, τὴν θεότητα" ἢ τὴν Pe, p. 80. Ap.
CHAP. Il.
494. JOHN VI, MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
cause in those words, “ Christ gave this Bread to His Apo-
—_—— stles to distribute it to the faithful people. This Bread is the
Macarius.
Gregory Nyssen.
St. Basil.
Optatus.
St. Hilary.
Cyril of Jerusalem,
food of Saints. We may receive even the Lord Himself, Who gave us His Flesh, as He Himself says, ‘I am the Bread of Life,—for he receives Him, who examines himself, and he who receives Him dies not the death of a sinner.” And in his discourse to them who were just now admitted to the Eucharist *, “'The food which ye receive is the Living Bread, Which comes down from heaven and affords the substance of eternal Life; and whoso eats of this Bread shall live for ever.’ And in the same discourse’, “ Christ is in this Sa- crament; for it is the Body of Christ; it is not therefore bodily but spiritual food.The Body of Christ is the Body of the Divine Spirit,” referrimg to John vi. 63. Macarius says‘, “Christ transforms Himself into meat and drink, as it is written in the Gospel, ‘He that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever.” Ephrem Syrus" calls the symbols, “Mysteries full of immortality:’ and therefore interprets those words, “ He that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever,” of the Holy Sacrament. Gregory Nyssen* labours to shew the manner, how the Eucharist conveys a principle of happy resurrection to the bodies of Christians, and there- fore supposes that this principle is in the Eucharist; which he could believe on no other grounds but the words in John vi. now mentioned. St. Basil declares’ that “it is good and profitable to communicate daily of the Body and Blood of Christ; since He Himself says, ‘ He that feeds on My Flesh, and makes My Blood his drink, hath eternal Life.” Optatus calls the Eucharist? “the pledge of eter- nal salvation, and the hope of our resurrection,” with a view to John vi. 54. St. Hilary having cited those words from John vi., “My Flesh is meat indeed,” &c., from thence concludes * that the Eucharist is “ the true Flesh and Blood of Christ by the declaration of Christ.” Cyril of Jerusalem observes”, that “ Christ once discoursing with the Jews said, ‘Except ye eat the Flesh, &c., they not understanding the
p- 26. Ap. <a ΒΡ p- 26. Ap. yop p- 27. Ap. * a, p. 22. Am, p- 25. Ap. “ων p- 25. Ap. >. dp
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 495
things that were spoken in a spiritual manner, but sup- SECT. posing that He exhorted them to eat flesh [like cannibals] = were scandalized, and went back from Him ;—but the hea- venly Bread, and the Cup of salvation in the New Testament, sanctify both body and soul.” Julius Firmicus* calls the Sa- Jul. Firm. crament, “the nutriment and ensign of immortality.” He cites Prov. ix. 1—5. and the history of Melchisedec, which the ancients did generally believe to be prefigurations of the Eucharist ; and adds, “ Our Lord, that He might more plainly declare what that Bread is by which the mischief of death is overcome, says in the Gospel, ‘I am the Bread of Life.’” St. Cyprian is very full in this point; for he interprets4 St.Cyprian. ‘daily bread,’ in the Lord’s Prayer, of the Eucharist; and adds, “ We desire this Bread to be given us daily, lest we that are in Christ and daily receive the Eucharist as the food of salvation, while we are repelled and forbid the hea- venly Bread by reason of some grievous sin, are thus also, by not communicating, separated from the Body of Christ ; since He Himself hath advertised us, ‘I am the Bread of Life,’ &c., since then He has said, ‘ He who eateth of this Bread shall live for ever ;’ as it is manifest, that they are alive who take hold of this Body by right of Communion, so on the other side we ought to pray and fear, lest any one being re- pelled be separated from the Body of Christ, and remain far from salyation ; since He threatens, and says, ‘ Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man,’ ὅς. Therefore we desire our Bread, that is, Christ, to be given us daily, that we who dwell and live inChrist may not depart from His sanctification(f. con- secrated Eucharist) and Body.” Dr. Clagett® is willing to be- lieve, that Corpus Ejus attingere, which I have rendered, ‘ take hold of His Body,’ is a phrase that “may be understood of all the means of grace.” Now let this be granted, yet I cannot conceive, what inference the Doctor would have drawn from thence for the service of his cause. For if it do import all the means of grace, it is evidently for this reason, that they who do “take hold of Christ’s Body” in the Eucharist “by right of Communion,” (and not by stealth, as this Father observes
ς p. 18. Ap. © [Preface to Paraphrase on John vi., ἃ g, p. 11. Ap. p. Xi. ]
496 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
CHAP. some lapsing Christians had done,) could not be deprived of = any other means of grace; for he, who has a right to receive the Communion, has a right to all other essential privileges of a Christian. It is certain, as to the main cause now in ‘dispute, St. Cyprian wants no comment; nor is it possible for the most perverse interpreter to stifle so plain an evi-
dence.
St.Ireneus. St. Irenzeus’s Discourses‘ turn entirely on this supposition, that those promises made by our Saviour, that “He who eateth this Bread shall live for ever,” are to be applied to the due receiving of the holy Eucharist. For he asserts, that it is by the Eucharistical symbols that we have the principle of a blessed immortality conveyed into our bodies, for which there is not the least appearance of proof from any other text of Scripture, but John vi. He never indeed does expressly cite any of the words of this context, either in the places to which I have referred my reader, or in any other part of his works, to the best of my observation; but his repeated assertion that bodies nourished by the Eucharist cannot be liable to a final mortality, is as clear a proof that he so understood this context, as if he had cited and transcribed it in words at length.
St. Igna- But St. Ignatius, after all, is instead of a thousand wit-
ες nesses. He, who was the disciple of St. John the Evangelist ‘who wrote these things,’ and who had lain in the bosom of that Apostle as the Apostle had in the bosom of Christ, who was by him constituted Bishop of Antioch, and received the sense and meaning of St. John’s Gospel from the holy pen- man himself, does expressly apply such virtues and privileges to the Eucharist, as cannot belong to it upon any other. con- sideration but this, that John vi. is to be understood of this holy Sacrament. This he does principally in those excellent words, where he exhorts the Ephesians? “to make haste together to one place, in one common faith in one Jesus Christ, breaking one loaf, which is the medicine of immor- tality; our antidote against death [and] for eternal Life, through Jesus Christ.””, And in another place, speaking of those heretics who abstained from the Eucharist, he pro- nounces sentence upon them in those words}, “It were better
Το Ὁ. δὲ ὁ: Ap: ε h, p. 2. Ap. ΤΗΣ ps 2. ps
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 497
for them to! receive it [the Eucharist], that through it they SECT. might one day rise again.” Now that the Eucharist is a means -΄ -- of a happy resurrection, cannot be allowed to the doctrine of Scripture, except John vi. be meant of the Eucharist; and therefore this holy Martyr, when he does once and again assert
that this is a privilege conferred on us by the Eucharist, must
of consequence be in this sentiment, that our Saviour there
spake of His Sacramental Body and Blood. This most pri-
mitive Father does not cite the Evangelists or other holy penmen by name, as was usual in after-ages; and very seldom (if at all) does expressly produce their words; but he does directly and in plain terms apply the greatest privilege or benefit of eating Christ’s Flesh to the receiving the Eu- charist ; and therefore leaves no reasonable occasion for us to doubt but that he understood John vi. of that Sacrament. I conceive one principal motive that modern Divines have to deny that John vi. is to be taken of the Eucharist, is this, viz., that the effects and consequences there attributed to he eating and drinking Christ’s Flesh and Blood (especially that of eternal Life) are too great and valuable to be applied to the Communion. But it is evident St. Ignatius was of another judgment; he believed immortality itself to be the effect of duly receiving the Sacrament. It is certain, he fearned his principles from the Apostle St. John ; and if St. John had not believed this doctrine, he would never have caught it his scholar. And if St. John himself believed it, rom whence should he receive this Divine truth but from shat discourse of our Saviour, which the Apostle himself has ecorded in the sixth chapter of his Gospel? There is another vassage of St. Ignatius, which I cannot but take as meant of he Eucharist ; but I will submit it to the judgment of the eader. In his Epistle to the Romans, which he sent to them efore his own arrival, when he was going to suffer martyrdom the imperial city, where they dwelt, he thus expresses ‘Pimself*; “I delight not in corruptible food, nor in the plea- ‘Jures of sae life ; I desire the Bread of God, which is the
hich is hic tie or ‘an a aaa love- eee own he was just before speaking of “ going to the Father ;”
᾿Αγαπᾶν. ΚΡ» ἌΡ: JOHNSON. kK k
CHAP. I.
498 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
and in the following words he declares, that he “ desires not human life.” And if this be thought a decisive argument against understanding those words of the Eucharist, they must be taken of eating the Flesh of Christ in another world; and perhaps some parallel expressions may be found in some writers of the fourth century, yet scarce in the more primitive Fathers. But I cannot think it any incoherence, when he was speaking of going to the Father and not desiring to live here, to express his holy hunger and thirst after that, which has always been thought the most proper vzaticum, the holy RKucharist. It is probable he had not been permitted, while under the custody of his inhuman keepers in his voyage, to celebrate the Eucharist; or that he durst not do it, for fear of having the mysteries profaned by them; but he hoped, when he came toe Rome, to have an opportunity of refreshing” himself with that Divine repast ; and, I suppose, he expresses these hopes and desires in the words now cited. And I am pretty sure, that there is no incongruity in this supposition ; whereas eating of Christ’s Flesh in another world is a way of expression somewhat unaccountable. ‘To receive the Flesh of Christ in the Eucharist’ is the familiar language of the primitive Church, and of the holy Martyr; ‘to receive the very) Christ by faith’ is a way of speaking common among modern Divines ; but this cannot be applied to eating Him in another world, for there faith vanishes in enjoyment. ‘To eat Christ’s: natural Body by love and devotion toward Him’ is a phrase not so agreeable to primitive simplicity, as ‘to eat and drmk. His Eucharistical Flesh and Blood ’ and therefore I think it most probable that he is so to be interpreted in this place ; and by calling the Eucharist “the Bread of God,” he clearly refers to John vi. 33. The Right Reverend Bishops Pearson! and Wake™ by ἀγαπᾶν understand “ receiving the Commu- nion” in the citation just before produced"; and though I am persuaded that the Eucharist and the common love-feast were not usually, in well-regulated Churches, celebrated at the same time and place; yet it is not improbable that th Eucharist might in a wide sense pass under that name, an
(2 eee
1 [“?Avamréy videtur significareayd- 1709. t πην ποιεῖν, Agapen celebrare, et Eucha- m [See Transl. of S. Ign. Ep. ac } ristiam percipere.’’—Vid. Pearsoni An- Smyrn. cap. 7.] I
th
notatt.in D. Ignatium, p. 18. Ed. Oxon. nh. fipe 9. Apel
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST, 499
that it does so in this place. So Εὐχαριστία is used in the Apostolical age both for thanksgiving at large, and for the ———— Eucharist strictly so called; Avdkovos for any Minister, and
yet for the Deacon; Ma@nrijs for any disciple of Christ, and
yet for an Apostle. But if instead of translating the words
‘an incorruptible love-feast,’ we turn them ‘incorruptible
love,’ the citation from St. Ignatius may be applied to the Sacramental Blood as well as to the natural, though not in
so exalted a sense. They are both, in their several degrees,
motives to us to love God, and assurances of His love toward
us; so that I can see no reason to understand Ignatius of
any other Blood but the Eucharistical.
Dr. Whitby, in his Examen Var. Lection. on John vi. 56, Eucharist reflects on Dr. Mill, for supposing that some words found in of Christ the Cambridge’-MS. might be genuine text, though not ex- tant in our present copies; and would prove the contrary by observing, that Σῶμα is used in those words of the MS. instead of Yap&; for, says Dr. W., “ Christ never in this discourse uses the word Body; nor does He in this discourse speak of His Sacramental Body®.”” By saying this, he sup- poses that Christ makes a distinction between His Flesh and His Body; or at least, that the Evangelist does so. It is evident this criticism will not bear the test, except the Doctor will lay his own judgment in the scale against that of St. Igna- tius ; for this holy Martyr? supposes it to be heretical to deny the Eucharist to be the Flesh of Christ. Justin Martyr testifies, that the Christians of his age‘ “were taught that the Eucharistized Bread was the Flesh of Christ ;” and Cle- mens Alexandrinus thus expresses the words of institution’,
* Hat My Flesh,” &c. These are three of the earliest writers next after the Apostles, that mention the Eucharist; and they unanimously call it ‘the Flesh of Christ.’ As this is a
que iis omissis citat hoc caput a v. 53. ad ν. 58. Origenes, περὶ εὐχῆς, p. 88,
o [Ad finem y. 56. Stephanus et Cant. addunt καθῶς ἐν Ἐμοὶ ὁ Πατὴρ, 89.
κἀγὼ ἐν τῷ Πατρί" ᾿Αμὴν, ᾿Αμὴν, λέγω ὑμῖν, ἐὰν μὴ λάβετε τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Tiod τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ὡς τὸν ἄρτον τῆς ζωῆς, οὐκ ἔχετε ζωὴν ἐν Αὐτῳ. Hec ipsius Johannis verba esse asserit Millius in Appendice, ex fide sc. Cant. (de quo tamen codice mirum in modum inter- polato vide judicium Millii, Proleg. p. 182. col. 2.) Agnoscit illa nullus Pater, nulla versio, nullus commentator; at-
Nec Christus per totum hoe ca- put vocabulum σῶμα usurpat, nec lo- quitur de Corpore Suo Sacramentaliter capiendo, ut alibi fusius ostensum est. Nihilominus restituta vult Millius, Pro- leg. p. 74.’’—p. 49. ]
Ph. p. 2. Ap.
da. p. 27 8: Apel 20;
ras θὲ 7... eps
Kk2
CHAP.
500 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
clear confutation of Dr. W.’s note, if these Fathers may be
i es ———- the judges ; so it is a very probable argument, that they un-
The judg- ment of the primitive Church on my side.
derstood John vi. of the Eucharist ; since they use that word in speaking of the Sacrament, which is there used by St. John. And since we are sure, that St. Ignatius by ‘the Flesh of Christ’ means the Eucharist in his Epistle to the Smyrnzans ; it is most likely, that by the same words he means the same thing in the Epistle to the Romans.
If any one do still think that some one particular Father, or even two or three of them, did understand John vi. other- wise than I do; yet all must acknowledge, that I have the generality of the ancients, and, above all, St. Ignatius, with me in this particular. Nay, I have a very great human authority, beside that of Ignatius, for taking John vi. as I do, viz., the judgment of the third General Council. These two, especially in conjunction, are as weighty a proof as can be produced from antiquity for taking any text of Scripture in any particular sense. And over and above all this 1 insist, that there were several doctrines which prevailed in the first ages of Christianity, that could not be grounded upon any other authority of Scripture than this of John vi. as under- © stood of the Eucharist. The doctrines I mean are such as these, viz.
That by abstaining from the holy Eucharist, Christians do incur the penalty of eternal damnation. This is a doc- trine which can hardly be preached without censure in a congregation, where there are any hearers well versed in our modern systems. It is true, that the duty of communicating has been much inculcated of late years; but I am not sen- sible that the neglect of it is usually taxed as a sin, whereby eternal happiness is forfeited ;
That the Holy Spirit is particularly present in the Eucha- rist ;
That the Eucharistical symbols convey to all worthy re- ceivers a principle of happy immortality.
If any of these doctrines can be proved from other places of Scripture, yet not with so great force, as from the fifth of St.John. And this is very evident from this consideration, viz., that none of these doctrines are now commonly believed by Christians in the purest Church now in the world; and of
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 501
this no other account can be given, but that it passes fora SECT. certain principle, that John vi. is meant of doctrine or I know not what mere notional manducation. One of the doctrines above specified has already been shewed to have been the sentiment of all antiquity. The others will appear to have been so, in the second Part. [See Part II. chap. ii. sect. 1.]
Having said what I judge sufficient to prove, that John vi. John vi
5 et . ᾽ is to Ὁ was by the primitive Church primarily understood of the tnderstood Eucharist ; I proceed to shew the same, oe
11. By a particular consideration of the context itself; proved from a con- and here 1 shall sideration
: P f the con- 1. Prove, that it cannot rationally be understood to have foxt itself
been primarily meant in either of those senses, in which it is now commonly taken.
2. And that it is most properly to be understood of eating and drinking Christ’s Sacramental Body and Blood.
1. In order to prove that John vi. cannot rationally be understood in either of the two senses now prevailing; I am first to inform my reader what these two senses are:
(1.) The first is, that our Saviour, by eating and drinking His Flesh and Blood, primarily means spiritual actions in general, or a belief of the doctrine of the Gospel and parti- cularly of His Death, and the benefits of it.
(2.) The second is, that our Saviour here speaks of eating and drinking His natural Flesh and Blood by faith.
(1.) Our Saviour cannot rationally be understood, by John vi. eating and drinking His Flesh and Blood, in St. John, pri- parce
rationally marily to mean spiritual actions in general ; or a belief of the bewi(@ doctrine of the Gospel, and particularly of His Death, and the mia νὰ . age benefits of it. oats ‘ spiri-
It is to be observed, that by ‘ spiritual actions’ Dr. Clagett pemery a understands moral virtues as taught by our Saviour, the Dr Whitby practising of the precepts of a heavenly life, whatever tends to the improvement of the mind, the following Christ’s ex- ample, believing in His Death; so that I take ‘spiritual actions’ in the sense of those who are adversaries of that truth, which I am now advancing. For I deny not the re- ceiving of the Sacrament with due preparation and applica- tion of mind, to be a spiritual action, (though conversant
| about material things and accompanied with oral manduca-
: [See p. 458.
CHAP. Il.
First ar- gument against Dr. C,. and
Dr. W.’s sense of John yi.
ver. 27.
502 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
tion,) but I now speak according to the sentiments of Dr. Clagett, expressed in his Discourse on John vi. 51. And it is to be noted, that Dr. Whitby falls in with him thus far, that he asserts the eating and drinking Christ’s Flesh and Blood to be “doing it spiritually by faith in His Blood ;” which he elsewhere explains by “receiving or believing ~ Christ’s doctrine,” exclusive of oral manducation. All the difference seems to be this, that Dr. Clagett, by this phrase, understands all spiritual actions; Dr. Whitby, one spiritual action or habit, viz., believing in Christ, particularly in His Death: and therefore I conceive that these opinions are so far one, that the same arguments will confute both, especi- ally if it be considered, that though Dr. Clagett does gene- rally speak of spiritual actions, yet in his paraphrase of ver. 51 he supposes our Saviour’s meaning to be this, “When I tell you that I am the Living Bread, &c., as you
are to understand this with respect to all the doctrine which }
I deliver; so especially with respect to that part of it, that I am come into the world to lay down My life for the salvation of mankind.” So that by ‘spiritual actions,’ Dr. Clagett must
have meant actions proceeding from, and consequent upon, a ἢ
true faith in Christ and His doctrine; and Dr. Whitby can- not mean a barren dead faith, for he makes eternal Life the reward of it; so that, as to this particular, there is little or no difference in their opinion, though in paraphrasing ver. 63, they depart widely from each other. Now against this opinion 1 thus argue,
First, if our Saviour do make a plain distinction, a very observable difference between believing Him or His doc- trine, and the meat which He promises to give, and which He declares afterward to be His Flesh and Blood; then He cannot by His Flesh and Blood mean believing His doctrine, and the spiritual actions proceeding from that faith; but He makes a clear distinction betwixt the believing Him or His doctrine, and the meat which He promises to give them; therefore the one cannot be the other. Now He clearly makes this distinction in His entrance on this discourse, in those words, “ Labour not for the meat that perisheth, but for the meat that endureth to everlasting Life, which the Son of Man shall give you.” Here He speaks of a labour or work, and of meat given to them who perform it; the labour |
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 503
is the condition, the meat is the wages or reward; which are SECT. two things as clearly distinct from each other, as any two things im nature. So again, “ He that cometh to Me” or be- heveth in Me, (which is the labour or condition) “ shall never hunger or thirst,” (which is the reward or wages ;) for ‘ not to hunger and thirst’ doth not here signify ‘to want an appetite
or stomach,’ but ‘to want food for the supply of that appe- tite’; there must always be a holy hunger and thirst in Christ’s disciples; and here, as elsewhere, He promises to fill or satisfy
it. So again, “ He that believeth on Me,” or performs the ver. 47. labour of faith, “ hath” for his wages “ eternal Life” or main- tenance by virtue of this food; “ For I” Myself “am” mys- ver. 48. teriously that food, “the Bread of” eternal “ Life,” to be eaten in a Sacramental manner. It is very evident then,
that here are two things very different from each other; and
what the labour is, Jesus Christ has expressly told us, namely,
faith m Him; for “This,” says He, “is the work of God,
that ye believe in Him Whom God hath sent ;” and what
the meat is, He fully declares in the sequel of this chapter. Sometimes He says it is He Himself; at other times, His Fiesh and Blood. As sure therefore as the labour is a dis- tinct thing from the meat or wages; so sure is it, that be- heving in Him or His doctrine is one thing, and the “ meat”
He promises to them who believe is another. And I hgmbly
offer it to Dr. W.’s consideration, whether his overlooking
this distinction were not the fundamental mistake of his paraphrase and annotations on this context; for nothing
can be more apparent than that he confounds the end and
the means, the “ work” and the “ meat.” Thus in his second
note on ver. 53, 54, p. 489, he asserts, that “It is the same thing in this chapter to eat of the Bread which came down
from heaven, and to believe in Christ breaking the Bread of eternal Life to us by His doctrine ;’ and to prove this, he adds, “ When He had exhorted them to labour for the meat
that did not perish,” He tells them, “ that this was to believe ver. 29. on Him Whom God had sent ;” whereas the Doctor might
have remembered, that our Saviour speaks not one word of
the “meat” or wages, in the twenty-ninth verse, but only
tells the Jews what the work was; and that was the only thing which the Jews had mentioned in their question ; they
CHAP. Il.
ver. 28.
504 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST,
inquire not of the “meat,” but “what they should do, that they might work the work of God.” So in his note on ver. 51, by the Bread which Christ promises to give, and which He calis His Flesh, he understands “faith im Christ as suffering and shedding His Blood;” but more apparently in his paraphrase of ver. 55, “My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed ;” that is, says the Doctor, “Faith in Me giving up My Body to the death, and shed- ding My Blood for the remission of sins, is the true meat and drink which nourisheth to eternal Life.’ In which places he evidently supposes the “work” and the “ meat” to be all one; nay, he makes no manner of difference between the hand whereby we receive the meat, which is faith, and the meat thereby received, which is the Flesh and Blood. But it is very clear to any one that reads this context with atten- tion, that faith, which if true and lively is attended with pious and devout affections of all sorts, and which Dr. Cla- gett calls ‘spiritual actions,’ is the labour or work by which the meat or wages is obtained; and that therefore the latter must be something clearly distinguished from the former. And it is further evident, that doctrine or precepts cannot be the meat or wages; for that is the object or matter, on which we labour or on which our faith is employed. For faith is an assent to the doctrine revealed by Christ; if therefore this faith be the work or labour, then the meat must be somewhat distinct both from that assent and that doctrine, to which the assent is given. It is certain, that this work or labour is not only a condition necessary in order to obtain the meat, but it is a preparation for the profitable receiving of it; it quickens the appetite, and strengthens the digestion, and converts the meat into solid food ; but still it is an action or habit, attended with variety of other good spiritual actions or dispositions: whereas the meat itself is neither action nor habit, but some refreshment or alimony, intended as a present reward for our labour and for our support in the performance of it. Therefore I con- clude, that the Bread, Meat, or Flesh and Blood promised in
t [ “ Fides est habitus mentis, quo randus, apud Pearson, on the Creed, assentimus dictis Scripture, propter Notes, p. 5.] authoritatem Dei revelantis.’’ See Du-
"JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 505
this chapter, cannot primarily denote either faith or any spiri- SECT. tual action attending our faith, nor the doctrine received by faith ; for that Christ made a clear distinction between them. 2. If to eat Christ’s Flesh and to drink His Blood signify secona
no more than to believe Him or His doctrine, and to lead a “8¢™™ moral holy life; and if this may be relied on; then it ought to appear, that these phrases have been used by some other great master of religion or philosophy in this sense; or that Christ Jesus did Himself, at some other time or place, so use them; but no such instance has been yet produced, and there- fore this sense is perfectly precarious. Dr. Whitby on this occasion produces several passages from Scripture and the Rabbies, where meat and drink, bread and wine, seem to sig- nify instruction or precepts of wisdom, or religion; but this does not come home to his purpose, unless some Prophet or great Doctor had been produced by him, inviting his disciples to eat of his flesh and drink of his blood, and explaining his words as meant of nothing but hearing or reading his lectures and endeavouring to practise them. The phrases are singular, and never used by any other but Christ, in a religious sense ; and therefore the signification of them must be singular too. The most that any who are of this opinion undertake to prove is, that these words are capable of this sense; it is impossi- ble they should prove that this and no other is the first and proper meaning of them, because the phrases were never used by any but our blessed Saviour; and there are no parallel expressions of any other great man, by which we can make a judgment of the sense of them. But suppose that they may be so understood; it does not follow that they were actually so meant by our blessed Master; and the affair He treats of is of the greatest moment, in which we ought not to take up with a ‘may be;’ for eternal Life is that which depends upon it. And certainly it is most enormously im- probable to suppose, that so very extraordinary a phrase as eating the fiesh and drinkingthe blood of a Doctor or master of religion should signify no more than so common a thing as receiving his instruction ; and therefore if it do so signify, it ought to be soundly proved: whereas I must profess, I cannot feel the force of any of the arguments, which I have yet met withal on this head.
Cee
Third
argument,
ver, 8].
ver. 47.
ver. 27,
506 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
3. If to eat Christ’s Flesh and to drink His Blood were phrases primarily and directly intended by our Saviour to denote believing His doctrine or practising it; then Flesh and Blood must signify doctrine in this place; but Flesh and Blood do not here signify doctrine ; for it is said of the Flesh and Blood here spoken of by Christ, that they were “to be given or offered for the Life of the world.’ Now not His doctrine but His personal Flesh and Blood were actually given or offered for the sins of the world, Sacramentally in the institution of the Eucharist, substantially on the Cross : therefore these words cannot directly and primarily be under- stood of doctrine, but either of His Sacramental or natural Flesh and Blood. Ido not dispute but that Origen and some others did give this sense to the phrases of eating Christ’s Flesh and drinking His Blood; and I have shewed, that eat- ing Christ’s Sacramental Flesh and drinking His Sacramental Blood does implicitly and by consequence import a reception of His doctrine; but the question now is not, whether this may remotely and by implication be meant by our Saviour ; much less, whether an allegorist may not put this sense upon them; but the question is, what our Saviour did primarily and directly mean by these phrases; and I think it very evident by what is said, that He could not mean ‘spiritual actions’ in Dr. Clagett’s sense, or ‘ believing in Christ and particularly in His Death, which is Dr. W.’s gloss,
[But I find some Divines of name and worth in an opinion, that those words of Christ, “ He that believeth on Me hath everlasting Life,” contain the same sense with those in the 54th verse, viz., “ He that eateth My Flesh and drinketh My Blood hath everlasting Life ;” and that therefore ‘to believe in Christ,’ and ‘to eat of His Flesh and to drink His Blood,’ are phrases of the same signification.
But this is a mere supposition ; it will, I humbly conceive, be impossible to advance it into so much as a fair probability.
I have already proved, that there is as much difference between ‘ believing’ and ‘ eating Christ’s Flesh, as between ‘labour’ and the ‘reward’ of that labour; and that this dis- tinction is made by Christ Himself; and that therefore ‘ faith,’ which is the labour, cannot be the same with ‘ eating Christ’s
Flesh,’ which is the reward. And farther, I have just above —
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST, 507
shewed, that we have no authority to prove that the eating “ποτ. the flesh of any master of religion does ever signify to re- _ Vv: __ ceive or believe his doctrine. |
(2.) Our Saviour cannot rationally be understood of eating John vi. and drinking His natural Flesh and Blood by faith. For, jationally
: ankine " _ be under- 1. Eating and drinking, whether naturally or morally, can one
not be performed, except the things eaten and drunk be pre- panne ae st’s sent first before us, and then within us. What we eat and natural
drink, in a natural sense, must first be placed within our reach, Bey Ὁ and then must be taken in by our mouths. What we eat First or what we drink, im a moral sense, must first be present to oe our eyes by reading, or to our ears by hearing, and then to our understandings by which we apprehend it, and to our memories by which we retain it; but the natural Body and Blood of Christ cannot be present to us here on earth, so
as to be first before us and then within us, and therefore is not capable of manducation: and this I hope need not be proved to Protestants of the Church of England. It may indeed be pretended that the natural Body and Blood may
be present by virtue of our faith; but this is all mere shift ;
for faith can make nothing present, which is in fact absent, but only teaches us to apprehend what is invisibly present and which is imperceptible by our external senses. ‘ Christ dwells in our heart by faith;’’ not that faith can bring our Saviour’s Body down from heaven, but because His Divine Nature is omnipresent, and our faith when it duly operates makes Him graciously present to us; or rather, He dwells
in us by His proxy, the Holy Spirit, Which is ordinarily re- ceived by the Sacraments only.
2. We cannot eat Christ’s natural Flesh and drink His second natural Blood by faith, because drinking His natural Blood “"*"°"* necessarily supposes this Blood of His separated from His Flesh; but His natural Blood separated from His Flesh is- not now in rerum natura; for this supposes Christ again cru- cified and dead, which is absurd; and His Blood can*in no sense be said to be drunk, but only as actually separated from His Body.
It may be said that we eat and drink Christ’s natural Flesh and Blood spiritually, by a sincere belief in His Death; but then the meaning of it can be only this, that
CHAP. Il.
Further disproof of both these opinions.
First argument.
508 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
we eat and drink Christ’s Body and Blood by believing in His Death and the merits of it: and this is no more but what was contained in the proposition before confuted, viz., that our Saviour, by His Flesh and Blood, meant nothing but spiritual actions, and particularly a belief in Him, and the merits of His Death. Now to believe in Christ or His Death is only to consent to the doctrines re- vealed in Scripture concerning His Person and sufferings for us; and I presume it has been already proved that Flesh and Blood do not signify doctrine in that text.
But further I apprehend that there are several argu- ments which are equally valid against both these two man- | ners of eating Christ’s Flesh and Blood, which I have now | been confuting, viz.,
1. The assertors of these two opinions do both take that | for granted, which is I think improbable to the last degree, | viz., that our Saviour here speaks metaphorically, and even catachrestically. The first opinion supposes, that both the eating and drinking is merely figurative and notional ; and that the Flesh and Blood eaten and drunk denote no more than bare doctrine and precepts. The other opinion sup- poses indeed the things eaten and drunk to be real mate- rial things, but to be swallowed, masticated, and digested by mere mental actions; which is therefore, of the two, I think, more incongruous and unnatural; but both agree in putting a very harsh and most remote sense upon our Savi- our’s words; and if it were only for this reason, I should never be able to reconcile myself to either of them: for no man can believe either of these senses to be the true one, but that he must suppose that our blessed Saviour affected such metaphors and catachreses to such a degree as designedly to amuse and give offence to his hearers, by inculcating and insisting upon these excessively figurative expressions with a most extraordinary degree of zeal and vehemence. It must be owned that if our Saviour, by men’s eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, meant nothing but so obvious a thing as receiving Him and His doctrine by faith and. obedience, He clothed His thoughts in most unnatural language, (for what is more unnatural to civilized men than to eat a man’s flesh and drink his blood?) and yet He laid so great stress on
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 509
these words, that He never appears, in the whole course of SECT. His life, to have spoken with more warmth and solemnity. Some suppose that the ‘repeated Amen is a positive oath ; ver. 53. but however that be, it is certainly a word importing a very high degree of asseveration ; and to suppose that our Saviour used it only to justify a very catachrestical expression is, to suppose that a wise and humble Teacher was so fond of a figure, as for the sake of it to give occasion to His hearers to desert Him. Dr. Clagett found himself pinched with this diffi- culty ; and he attempts to answer it by saying", “ Sometimes it becomes a man of wisdom and authority, when he finds his words perverted, to repeat them again, and thereby speak his own assurance.” But the Doctor does not so much as offer in this place, at any reason, why our Saviour chose this way of ex- pressing Himself, which is so very singular and extraordinary ; and in this consists the main force of the objection ; and as to the rest, I do not believe that any man raises his reputation or authority, or is thought the wiser or greater by men of com- petent sense, merely for repeating his words again, and there- by speaking his own assurance ; especially when the dispute is concerning nothing else but only the aptness of a word or phrase. For, according to the sentiments of these learned men, our Saviour’s discourse here was not intended to instruct His hearers in any duty which He had not taught them before or to inform them in any Divine truth, but only to tell them in a very dark and obscure way, what He had formerly taught them very plainly, viz., that ‘‘ He who be- Johniii. 36. lieveth on the Son hath everlasting Life.” And it is not consistent with the character, which I think all good Chris- tians have of their great Master, to suppose, that He would so earnestly contend for the justness of a metaphorical and exceedingly remote way of expression; for so it must be owned to be, if it import no more than receiving His doctrine. At another place Dr. Clagett would have it thought that “our Lord did not think fit to foretell the ignominious death He was to suffer, or the reasons and ends of His Passion’. And yet in his paraphrase of ver. 51. he supposes our Saviour says, “ You are to understand Me to be the Living Bread, with respect to all the doctrine I deliver, but especially with u [ Preface, p. v.] ” τ pp. 39, 40.
CHAP. Il.
Second argument.
510 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
respect to that part of it, that I am to lay down My life for the salvation of mankind*.” And therefore here he takes that for granted, which afterwards he denies. And indeed | it is very evident, that our Saviour never made His Death or the end of it a secret. The Capernaites themselves could not be so stupid as to believe that He was to remain alive, when His Flesh was eaten and His Blood drunk in that literal manner that they understood Him. Soon after this, He informed them concerning the manner and instruments of His Death; but as to His Death itself and the design of it, He in this context clearly enough foretells it to the multi- tude. And nothing could have driven a person of so clear a head and so penetrating a judgment as Dr. Clagett upon such inconsistencies as these, but a misplaced zeal for a popular error: for so, I hope, I may by this time have leave to call it.
2. If either of the senses, against which I am now arguing, be the true one, then all good communicants are to receive more than one Body or Flesh, more than one Blood, in the holy Sacrament. Dr. Clagett and Dr. Whitby by Flesh and Blood here understand doctrine; the Calvinists, the natural Flesh and Blood of Christ ; and I conceive all that are in the sentiments of these Doctors, or of the Calvinists, will allow, that pious communicants may and do receive the Flesh and Blood meant in John vi. as well as the Body and Blood men- tioned in the words of institution. All, at least, that I have read, do confess so much; and the necessary conse- quence of this is, that all believers do in the Sacrament receive two Bodies and Bloods of Christ, the typical or sym- bolical and the spiritual Flesh and Blood (which is, in the sense of the two Doctors, His doctrine), or the natural, ac- cording to the hypothesis of the Calvinists. Nay, it from hence follows, that communicants are in duty bound to re- ceive both; because it is the duty of all to receive with faith. And therefore, according to these suppositions, our Saviour should have said, “Take My Bodies, My Bloods:” for no one can suppose that our Saviour designed to bid His dis- ciples receive but one, when it was their duty to receive both.
Now I conceive, that that bids fairest for the most proper
x p. 32.
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 511
sense and meaning of this context, which is not attended sEcrT. with any of those inconveniences or inconsistences to which —_’: these opinions are liable; nor to those greater absurdities, Non’ οὗ
with which the doctrines of Transubstantiation or Consubstan- pees OLloW,
tiation are attended. These latter are so gross and incredible, John vi. be " that I cannot conceive I have any occasion to argue against οὐ ss them. Nor can the primitive doctrine, which I am now Eucharist defending, be justly charged with any such consequences as
have made the two doctrines last mentioned so universally
abhorred amongst us. I shall therefore only observe, that if
we believe our Saviour to speak of His Eucharistical Flesh
and Blood in John vi. we shall avoid all those difficulties and objections, with which the hypothesis of Dr. Clagett and Dr.
Whitby, and that of the Calvinists are pressed.
1. The doctrine of the primitive Church, viz., that John vi. is to be understood of the Eucharist, is not liable to those objections which are brought against the opinion of Dr. Whitby and Dr. Clagett, and which now seem to prevail among us. For, 1. taking St. John’s context to be meant primarily of the Eucharist, there is a clear distinction be- tween the labour and the meat; the labour is faith, the meat is the Sacramental Flesh of Christ; and this is, as it were, an earnest of eternal Life to come. It is the wages paid us in hand; our present refreshment, whereby we have a supply of whatever is necessary for us during our present pilgrimage. It is to be given only to believers, as Justin Martyr¥ observes ; and he who comes to Christ or believes in Him can never suffer for want of spiritual food, can never have a starving hunger or thirst. 2. The primitive Fathers did not take the sixth of John to be primarily understood in a precarious arbitrary sense; but in that very sense, which they believed our Saviour to have stamped upon the phrases of eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood, in the words of institution. And since they did not find, that any other person had ever used these expressions in a religious sense but only Christ Jesus; therefore they judged it safest, to take them according to the same meaning that Christ else- where had given them.
Some of the Fathers did indeed use the same liberty with
Y a. p» 2, 3. Apsl. 12.
CHAP. Il.
By Flesh John vi. and by Body Matt. Xxvi. 26.
is meant the same thing.
512 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST,
both these contexts, which they do with other the plainest texts of Scripture; that is, they do suppose that they were capable of an anagogical, as well as a proper sense; but they never took the liberty to suppose, that Flesh and Blood in John vi. meant one thing, and Body and Blood in the institu- tion meant quite another.
They thought it unreasonable to suppose, that our Saviour in John vi. by the word ‘ Flesh,’ should mean any other thing than what He called His ‘ Body’ in the words of institution. Flesh indeed sometimes signifies human nature; but when Flesh and Blood are spoken of, as separated from each other, as they are John vi. 51, 53, there Flesh can import no more than Body. Therefore as three of the most ancient writers of the Church, Ignatius, Justin, and Clement of Alexandria, do expressly call the Eucharistical Bread, “the Flesh of Christ ; so all the following writers do indifferently call it, Flesh or Body. And I believe I may safely challenge the greatest critic to shew any difference between them. And 3. by these means they avoided the inconvenience of asserting, as the moderns do, that Flesh and Blood signify in this context (primarily and directly) doctrine ; for though it might be thought tolerable for Origen and the allego- rists, when they did not desire to have the texts they were speaking of too well understood, to speak of doctrine and precepts as meant by those expressions ; yet certainly this latitude is not to be allowed to those, who undertake to give us the most proper and direct signification of these texts.
2. The inconveniences of the Calvinistical doctrine do not: at all affect the judgment of the ancient Church. For, 1st, the primitive Fathers did not believe that any Body and Blood were eaten or drunk in the Sacrament but only the Eucharistical Bread and Wine, consecrated into the Body and Blood of Christ, by the especial presence and power of the Spirit. And 2ndly, they believed no Blood of Christ as separated from His Body to be anywhere else but im the Sa- crament, and that it was there not in substance but in power and effect.
3. The doctrine of the primitive Fathers, who understood John vi. of the Eucharist, was free from the inconveniences and inconsistencies with which both the hypotheses above
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 513
mentioned, are justly chargeable. For first, they were far from thinking that the words there spoken by Christ were merely figurative or catachrestical; they knew that our Saviour there spoke of the Eucharist ; and they did by no means believe that Christ in that holy Sacrament feeds the souls of men with mere dry metaphors or catachreses. Though they did not understand Christ in a literal sense, as the Capernaites did; yet neither on the other side did they suppose that it was the intention of Christ to puzzle His auditors, and even to stagger His own disciples with strained enigmatical sayings; for they believed He spoke of a real mystery, and therefore spoke in a manner very agree- able to the subject of which He was treating. They conceived He was now opening His intention of establishing the most Divine Sacrament of His Flesh and Blood; and to raise in them just thoughts and apprehensions of that heavenly mys- tery, He speaks of it in the most elevated words, and repre- sents the benefits of it in terms befitting so admirable an institution. If He had begun by speaking to them of the outward symbols, they might have been apt from thence to conceive a very little and unworthy opinion of it ; they could scarce have believed it equal to the manna with which their fathers were fed for forty years together in the wilderness ; and since, as has been shewed, He performed the Melchise- decian oblation of His Body and Blood in Bread and Wine, He had not done justice to His subject, if He had not called the former ‘the Bread of God’ and the ‘ Flesh,’ the Sacra- mental Flesh, which He was “ to give to God” as an earnest of His natural Flesh, “‘ for the Life of the world.” And this is the mystical sense of these words; for they were never in- tended by Christ either in a literal or merely figurative sense. It was our Saviour’s design to speak of a mystery as such; and the mystical is therefore in this case the primary and direct sense. And, secondly, it needs no proof, that the ancients believed but one Body and Blood of Christ to be received in the Eucharist, viz., the Sacramental Bread and Wine, which was, as they believed, made the Body and Blood by the enlivening power of the Spirit, according to the doc- trine of Christ taught them in this very chapter.
They did indeed justly suppose, that it was by virtue of
JOHNSON. L ]
SECT. Ve
CHAP. ΤΙ,
Positive proof that John vi. is meant of the Eucharist.
514 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
the Word, that the elements became Christ’s Body and Blood; and that none did beneficially partake of the Sacra- ment with their mouths, who did not receive the Word with their hearts; nay, they looked on the Eucharist to be an ordinance, which implied the reception of the whole revealed will of God, as it certainly is by virtue of its representing the crucified Body of Christ Jesus, which is indeed the sub- stance of Christianity ; but they did by no means think His Flesh in St. John to be one thing, and His Body in St. Mat- thew to be another.
2. I proceed to give some positive proofs, that John vi. is to be understood most properly of eating and drinking Christ’s Sacramental Body and Blood.
Now by His Flesh and Blood we must either understand His natural substantial Flesh and Blood; and that this is not capable of manducation has been so often and so largely proved by many Protestant Divines, especially of the Church of England, that I think my reader will gladly spare me the pains of a recital of the arguments and authorities pro- duced by them upon this head: or else, secondly, by the Flesh and Blood we must understand the natural Body re- ceived by faith and spiritually, which I have just now refuted : or, thirdly, the imaginary spiritual Body spoken of by one or two of our Divines, and which is by Robert Barclay said to be the spiritual Seed or Light within ; which is a notion, that I have sufficiently confuted in the foregoing treatise: or, fourthly, we must take it for doctrine and precepts, which is a notion that I have just before considered and disproved : or else, fifthly, we must take it in the only remaining sense, for which I am now contending ; I mean, for the Eucharistical Body and Blood, which appears to have been the general sense of antiquity, and for which cause I should prefer it to all other opinions whatever, if there were no violent reason to the contrary. And I am fully convinced, that it is not only the opinion or rather universal judgment and doctrine of the primitive Church, but that it is in itself most agreeable to the words and intentions of our Blessed Lord and Master in this place.
I have already shewed, that there is no ground for making any difference between the word ‘ Body’ in the history of
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 515
institution, and ‘ Flesh’ in St. John’s context ; and that they SECT.
are words of the very same import and signification. And I cannot but be of opinion, that any man of middling judg
prepossession, will, by comparing the context now in dispute with the history of institution recorded by the three other Evangelists and St. Paul, be naturally led into this opinion, without any laborious proof or argumentation. This has been the case in relation to myself. For it is now almost or altogether twenty years, that I have been fully persuaded in my own judgment, that John vi. was so to be understood ; though I can truly declare, that I never to this hour have met with any book but the Scriptures themselves and the ancients above cited, that could in the least dispose me to be of this sentiment; all the modern books that I have ever read on this subject, being directly against me in this par- ticular. And I was fully fixed in this judgment, before I could have an opportunity of consulting many of the ancients on this head. Origen, whom I first consulted on this occa- sion, seemed to me at first sight rather an adversary than a friend, until upon a more full scrutiny I found myself mistaken in my man; which was a good encouragement to me to pro- ceed in examining others. And I am now come to a perfect conviction, that I have both reason and authority on my side. My authorities for this sense, which I now maintain, have already been presented to my reader, and my reasons against those other senses, which now prevail amongst us. And the positive proofs now follow.
1. It is incredible, that our Saviour should all at once First
make known, and administer so very solemn and mysterious an institution, considering that the Apostles, to whom He administered it, were slow in understanding and believing spiritual things. I am very sure, that Priest, who in this degenerate age, should frequently administer this Sacrament to the people, but never take any care to let them into the knowledge of the mystery, any further than by rehearsing the words of institution as often as he celebrated, would be thought very notoriously defective in his duty. And shall we permit our Saviour to lie under such an imputation, as would be thought criminous in one of His inferior Ministers ? 119
D7 most ob- ment, who reads the Holy Scriptures without pis ace Gree
"
CHAP. Ii.
Second argument.
516 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
Nay, I am bold to say, that upon this supposition our Saviour would appear more culpable than any of us in this case. For the Eucharist is now become an ancient ordinance, of many hundred years’ standing; the history of it’s institution is well known to all, if it be not absolutely their own fault; and no man can wholly be ignorant of the nature of it, who has lived in a Christian Church to the age of twenty or thirty, except his ignorance be affected. But the Sacrament was an institution perfectly new and unheard of before, when our Saviour first administered it, in the opinion of those who deny John vi. to relate to this matter. It therefore must be supposed, that our Saviour did extempore institute and oblige His Apostles to receive the Sacrament, without giving them any previous notice or information, whereby they might be prepared for it; unless it be acknowledged, that here in this context He did give them this notice and information ; for we have not the least intimation of His doing it in any other place of the histories of the Evangelists. And there- fore to acquit our Saviour from this imputation, it ought in reason to be acknowledged that He did it here; and that St. John, observing that the other Evangelists had omitted this discourse, thought it necessary to be inserted in his Gospel; whereas, the history of the institution being related by the other three, there was no occasion for him to repeat it. 2. It is very evident, that no Flesh and Blood of Christ can be eaten and drunk, but the Eucharistical only ; and that no other Body of Christ is capable of oral or bodily manducation, will be readily granted: and we may as properly be said to eat and drink the Trinity by believing in It, as to eat the Body of Christ by bare faith or any actions purely mental or intellectual; much less can we drink the Blood of Christ apart from the Body, anywhere but in the Eucharist. The natural extravasated Blood of Christ can be drunk in imagi- nation only, for it is not in rerum natura; the spiritual Body of Dr. More and some others is a mere airy speculation. Christ’s Body and Blood were never designed by Christ directly to denote mere doctrine and precepts; this is only an anagogical construction of some commentators both ancient and modern; but with this difference, the ancients used it as an improper and secondary exposition, and chiefly applied it
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 517
to the catechumens ; the modern, as the prime and sole inten-
‘SECT γ.
tion of our blessed Saviour in these words, and as a more -
_ perfect way of eating Christ’s Flesh and drinking His Blood than that in the Eucharist; but that Flesh and Blood do in this context primarily denote doctrine, can neither be proved by authority, nor as I believe by any good and solid reason. I conclude, that therefore no Body or Blood can be properly received, eaten, or drunk by us, but the Sacramental only.
3. It is a fixed rule, with all good interpreters, to prefer the literal sense before any other, when there is no violent reason to the contrary. It is allowed that in this case we have a violent and irresistible reason against understanding John vi. in the literal sense ; for nothing can be more absurd than to suppose, that Christ intended literally to feast His disciples with the natural Flesh, to be eaten with the teeth and swallowed by the throat. And I have already shewed that His natural Flesh and Blood cannot be said to be eaten and drunk by faith.
Now I submit it to my reader, whether it be not as just and reasonable a rule in interpreting Scripture, that when the literal sense cannot be allowed, we should in the next place prefer that sense which is nearest to the literal. For I conceive this rule is built upon the same reason and grounds that the former is; and sure it will not bear a dispute, whe- ther receiving the Sacrament or believing and obeying Christ do come nearest to the literal sense of eating Christ’s Flesh and drinking His Blood. I suppose I have sufficiently proved that to receive the Sacrament is verily and indeed to eat Christ’s Flesh and drink His Blood in power and effect, though not in substance; whereas it yet remains to be proved that to believe in Christ is ever denoted by eating Christ’s Flesh and drinking His Blood, except perhaps in three or four places of the ancients, when they were speaking alle- gories.
4. That which seems to me to be decisive, and of itself suffi- cient to determine the sense of John vi. to the Eucharist, is this, that the same phrases used by the same person, though in several places, ought to be taken in the same sense, if here be no cogent reason to the contrary. Now I suppose it very evident from what has been said, that ‘to eat Christ’s
Third
argument.
Fourth argument.
CHAP. IL.
518 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
Body’ and ‘to eat His Flesh’ are the very same phrase, though not the same words; and it is evident that St. Igna- tius and Justin Martyr and Clemens Alexandrinus thought them so; and therefore to suppose that two different things are to be understood by this phrase, is to talk precariously ; it is to say, that our Saviour’s discourses were not all of a piece, and that we cannot enter into His meaning at one place, by what He has expressed in the same phrase at an- other. And this argument will be of greater force, if it be considered that this phrase is very singular and extra- ordinary, never used by any person in a religious sense but by our blessed Saviour, and by Him but twice in the whole course of His life and ministry, so far as appears to us. What legislators would they be thought, who should take this course | in forming human laws? Who would think them worthy of the names of lawyers or lawyer’s clerks, who should take this liberty; I mean, in the same law or instrument, or even in two several laws or instruments, to use the same phrase in two dif- ferent meanings? Especiallyif this phrase were peculiarto these legislators or lawyers, and used by none else, which is the pre- sent case? And by consequence, what interpreters are they who will pawn that on our Saviour, when He was instructing us in the way to eternal happiness, which would be thought intolerable in men of common sense, in things that relate only to civil rights and the concerns of human government ? I am pretty sure, that such glosses as these do very much undervalue the Gospel and the Divine Author of it, and ex- pose it to the bold conjectures of enthusiasts and to the scoffs of atheists and infidels. It was this method of ex- pounding John vi. which gave a handle to the Quakers, to interpret it of the Light within. And while the generality of Divines give up this context, as they have done of late ages, for a passage of Scripture not primarily meant of the Eucha- rist, we can neither effectually confute this wild conceit of the Quakers, nor any other, which the glaring fancy of any man of new light may hereafter produce. When Origen gave an anagogical turn to John vi., he did the same to the history of institution ; for he could not but be sensible, that all dis- cerning men who understood Christianity in any tolerable measure, would from hence infallibly conclude, that he could
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 519
not intend this to be the direct primary meaning of our Saviour in the first place of Scripture, any more than in the second. And it is observable, that even from this anagogical exposition of both these places, he gives us to understand, that he took the phrases of eating Christ’s Flesh and eating His Body to be the same, and therefore treats them in the same manner. And though I am not over much in love with this way of expounding Holy Scripture, yet if our modern in- terpreters would be content to follow Origen’s example, thus much at least would have remained clear and indisputable, viz., that John vi. is a context meant of the Eucharist, as well as the history of the institution; and that the phrases of eating Christ’s Flesh and eating His Body are parallel, or rather are the very same.
If indeed there were any violent reason for taking this phrase in two distinct senses in these two several places; if any absurdity or inconsistence were by this means to be avoided, I should readily grant, that they who were for taking the phrase in two several senses, might do it out of a pious design to secure the honour of our blessed Master ; though I think he would much better consult the reputation of Christ Jesus and His religion, who could reconcile those seeming absurdities and inconsistences in such a manner as to leave the same phrase to be meant in both places of the same thing. But in this case I cannot discern any appear- ance of difficulty or inconvenience that follows upon taking the phrase in both places to signify receiving the Sacra- mental Body and Blood.
I know it is commonly thought a sufficient objection against understanding John vi. of the Eucharist, that our Saviour as- serts eternal Life to be settled as a reward upon them who eat His Flesh and drink His Blood; and it seems incredible to many modern Divines, that so ample a reward should be pro- mised to them who receive the Sacrament. And so should I too, if by receiving the Sacrament I understood nothing but an external eating and drinking of the Eucharistical Body and Blood; but I suppose I have sufficiently guarded my reader against any such misapprehension. For I have all along argued upon this principle, that it is our Saviour’s intention, both in John vi. and in the other Evangelists, to oblige His
SECT. Vv.
The objec- tion of eternal Life being an- nexed to eating of Christ’s Flesh, is of no force,
CHAP. Il.
What is our Saviour’s meaning, when He says, “Take, eat,” in the institution.
520 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
disciples to an internal as well as external manducation ; that to eat His Flesh in John vi., and to eat His Body according to the institution, are words of the very same import; and that they who make those words imply two several actions or duties, proceed upon a precarious and false supposition. And certainly they who receive the Eucharist with faithful, hum- ble, penitent, and obedient hearts, do all that Dr. W. or Dr. Clagett mean by faith and spiritual actions; and there- fore may reasonably be presumed to have a right to eternal Life. Nay, they do something more, they receive the Sacra- ment of Christ’s Body and Blood: [that is, they fulfil a positive command of Christ, and use a necessary means of salvation instituted by Him. ]
And that I may convince my reader that there is no ill consequence attending this interpretation, I shall desire him to consider what is the certain and infallible meaning of our Saviour, when He said (after He had blessed the Bread) “Take, eat, This is My Body.” That He bade His disci- ples eat the consecrated Bread with their mouths, will be readily agreed by all. What I further insist upon, and what I think no man can in justice deny, is, that He did not only bid them eat with their mouths but with their minds; for He assures them that it was His Body, and yet they saw it to be Bread; and therefore they could not receive or eat it with their mouths as His natural Body; but at the same time they did outwardly eat the Bread, they could by their understandings apprehend it as a full and perfect representation of that natural Body of His. The Apostles indeed might have rather been startled than in- structed by what our Saviour now did, if He had not long before warned and advertised them of this His intention, as He did in John vi.; but being so long before apprised that He would give them something to eat under the title and cha- racter of His Flesh, they were by this means prepared to eat it as a mystery; which though it was to the sight and in gross substance but Bread, yet by His appointment and the Divine benediction was to them the Flesh of their Master. It could not indeed be perceived to be so by their outward senses; and this therefore necessarily supposes, that they could not receive it as the Body of Christ without the as-
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST, 521
sistance of their faith, and the inward faculties of their minds; and that therefore they must not rest in the outward action, but “eat it rationally,” as Clemens Alex.” expresses it, like men and Christians, not like brutes and infidels. And indeed it is strange and unaccountable to me, how the same phrase in John vi. should be supposed to carry a more perfect and sublime meaning than in the words of institution. To eat Christ’s Flesh and Body in St. John is such a duty, as has eternal Life and all evangelical blessings annexed to it ; and that in such strong words, that it is impossible for inter- preters to stifle or abate the signification and power of them. And the most plausible reason which modern writers have to suppose, that eating Christ’s Body im the words of institution is to have another sense given it, is this, viz., that eternal Life is too great a promise to be annexed to Sacramental eating ; and indeed this is true, if by Sacramental eating be meant no more than by communicating Sacramento tenus, as St. Augustine just now expressed it. But can any man be- lieve, that when Christ Jesus says, “Take, eat, This is My Body,” He means no more than that they should press the symbol of His Body with their teeth, and swallow it with the organs of deglutition? I am persuaded, that all honest Christians, whether learned or unlearned, will readily ac- knowledge that, when Christ bade His Apostles to eat His Body in the Eucharist, He invited and exhorted them to perform it as a mystery; and therefore internally as well as externally to believe, that He had already in the intention of His will and by the Sacramental Bread and Wine, given His Body and Blood for them; and that they were to re- ceive it with such dispositions of mind as became men, when they came to drink the Blood of the Covenant for remission of sins, that is, with sincere faith and repentance and other holy affections.
And I cannot conceive, that eating and drinking Christ’s Flesh and Blood in St. John can import more than it neces- sarily must in the words of institution. It is true, our Saviour in the words of institution does more strongly imply external or oral manducation than he does in John vi., for then He shewed them what the external substance of this Sacrament
“id. Ὁ. ἦν Ap
SECT. Nee
Eating Christ’s Flesh can import no more in John vi.
CHAP. Il.
522 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
was, which He had not expressly done in John vi.; but sure none will from thence infer, that He excludes the inward or intellectual part. And I hope no one can think the inward or intellectual part of the duty of a communicant the less valuable or considerable, because it is attended with external manducation. Why our Saviour thought it more proper to make external manducation necessary, I shall have occasion to shew in the second Part. In the meantime we certainly know the meaning of these phrases, “Eat My Body,” “Drink My Blood,” in the words of institution: and I affirm that, taking these phrases in the same sense in John vi. all runs clear, and there is no manner of difficulty, nor any thing that looks like it. For in both places we understand eating, not only externally with the mouth, but internally with faith and a sense of the duty we are performing, and with all such dispositions as are required in people that come to receive so great favours from the hand of God. And if eternal Life do not belong to such communicants, it is certain, that pro- mise cannot of right be applied to any Christians on this side of heaven. And I shall hereafter prove, that we are to continue our claim to this right by a constant and sincere use of the means,
Though I conceive, if we would speak strictly and pre- cisely, our Saviour does not say, that he who feeds upon His Flesh has thereby a right to eternal Life; but that he who haying performed the labour of faith receives his present wages in hand, that is, the Sacrament, has in that Sacra- ment such a spiritual maintenance or subsistence, as will supply him with constant strength and ability to perform his duty, and give him such a gradual growth in virtue and grace, as knows no bounds or limits; and will, if it be not his own fault, convey to him the principles of a resurrection | to that state of blessedness, which shall have no end. For Τὶ take Ζωὴ to denote, not so directly life itself, as the means’ or provision by which life is maintained, as I may have occa- sion hereafter to shew more at large.
And they that use the means outwardly and in appearance only, that eat, as Judas is by many supposed to have done, with malicious intentions, or for an hypocritical disguise ; they are so far from performing the duty required by Christ,
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 523
that they eat and drink their own damnation. Nay, they SECT. who perform this duty carelessly, without a sincere faith, love, humility, &c., they do but one part of the duty, and that the least valuable; they do not come to the Lord’s Table with such good affections and desires, as are necessary in order to receive the spiritual blessings there reached out to all worthy communicants. I know some think it an objection against taking John Vi. How eter- in this sense, that our Saviour makes the eating His Flesh 7.40"
tion de- and drinking His Blood a necessary condition of eternal Pendson
Life ; but this objection seemed none in the judgment of the Christ primitive Church, who did always believe that without this none is capable of eternal Life, as will be shewed in the second Part. Iam sensible some Divines, in order to represent the absurdity of the doctrine which I now defend, aggravate this necessity to such a degree, as to suppose that even the Patriarchs and others who lived before Christ were not capa- ble of future happiness, without eating Christ’s Flesh and drinking His Blood in the sense here intended. But they have no grounds for this, in the words used by our blessed Saviour. He says indeed, “ Except ye,” that are My disciples and hearers, who may, if you think fit, be members of My Church, arid live in constant communion with it; except ye, I say, that are capable of this blessing, if it be not your own fault, do “‘eat My Flesh and drink My Blood, ye have no Life in you:” for our Saviour spake to none but Jews, who dwelt in the Holy Land, where His Church was first erected, and who might become members of it, if their own obstinacy and perverseness did not prevent : and I suppose our Sayiour’s laws are to be understood in the same sense with the laws of all wise governors, and therefore with this tacit reserve, Nemo tenetur ad impossibile,
I am not ignorant, that many of the ancients did from Whether hence conclude, and some Christians do to this day believe, o7m™"n"
cating in- that by virtue of this declaration of Jesus Christ, even infants fants can be are under an obligation of eating and drinking the Sacra- from hence. mental Body and Blood; but I must profess that I cannot see that this is fairly deducible from the words; for our Saviour speaks to grown persons, such as were capable of
‘labouring or doing the work of God,’ that is, ‘ believing,’
524 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
cHuaAp. as He Himself explains it, to such as were culpable for not __!! __ believing, and therefore not to children; nor indeed was the ΕΞ Scar communicating of children ever the universal practice of the Church; but I believe withal, that the giving the Sacra- mental Body and Blood to infants was a much more ex- cusable practice than that contempt or neglect of it, which now so much prevails. God grant that what I have written may serve for the cure of this great evil. How the If any shall think it an objection against this sense of Bred the words, that it is said of this Bread that it “comes down ep ane from heaven,” or that it “came down from heaven” (for heaven. | Christ indifferently useth either the present or the aorist), it is to be observed, that this is as hard to be understood of His natural Body as of His Sacramental; for it is certain that His human Nature was “ conceived of the Virgin Mary,” and therefore was not from heaven as His Divine Nature was ; and it is evident to a demonstration, that this must be under- stood of His natural Body, or of His Sacramental Body, or ver. 50, 51.0f both; for thus the words stand, “I am the Living Bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die. Iam the Living Bread which came down from heaven ; if any man eat of this Bread, he shall live for ever ; and the Bread which I will give is My Flesh, which I will give for the Life of the world.” And certainly it may as well be said of His Sacramental Body as of His doctrine, that It came down from heaven; because both of them are from God ; and if our Saviour speak of the baptism of John as a Matt. xxi. thing “from heaven,” much more might He say so of the τὰν Sacrament of His own Body and Blood. The truth is, as His human personal Body was from heaven, by reason of It’s being conceived of the Holy Ghost, for the same reason is His Sacra- mental Body from heaven, as being made what It is by the secret operation of the same Divine Person; both the one and the other are so “from heaven,” that they are “not of men ;” the Divine power of the Spirit is to be considered as the principal agent, both in forming Christ’s natural Body, and consecrating the Eucharistical. The first And I must own that it is a great satisfaction to me, that Reformed Τ have the first Reformed Church of the world on my side in
Church of Bohemia so this particular. Dr. Clagett observes, in his Discourse on
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 525
John vi.* that Cardinal Cajetan says of the Bohemians, that SECT. “They argued, that if our Lord had not treated in John vi. — ςς concerning the Sacrament, He would not have distinguished John vi. between eating and drinking, least of all between eating His Flesh and drinking His Blood.” By this I have the confession of two learned adversaries at once, that I have the Bohemians with me as to this point. The Cardinal supposed, that if John vi. were understood of the Eucharist, ‘it would im- ply a necessity of communicating children,’ which I have shewed to be a groundless supposition ; but that which I believe weighed most with the Cardinal was the other reason mentioned in the same place, viz., that if this text be understood of the Eucharist, it will follow that there is a necessity of the Cup as well as of the Host. And indeed the words of Christ are very emphatical, “ Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have no Life in you.” No wonder therefore that Dr. Clagett justly boasts», that “he had Popes, Cardinals, Bishops, and Doctors, before the Council of Trent, for number as well as quality not inferior to those who maintained the contrary side ;” and it is probable that this was the main motive for so many Divines of the Church of Rome to assert, that John vi. was not to be understood of Sacramental manducation, viz., because if this were allowed, they thought the practice of that Church in denying the Cup to the laity to be inde- fensible, as without doubt it is; and therefore the Council of Trent would by no means determine that John vi. was to be understood of the Sacrament ; for they were not insensible that the principal ground of the Bohemians demanding the Eucharist in both kinds for the laity as well as Priests, and of the absolute necessity of it, was this text in John vi. I am further informed by my reverend and learned neighbour Mr. Dorrington, (who will ere long oblige the world with a more particular account of the most early Reformers,) that while they went under the name of Taborites (from the chief place of their residence) they presented to the States of Bohemia a Confession of their faith, in which the article of the Eucharist runs thus’; “ Now after the Sacrament
* [Preface, p. xix. ] ¢ [Johnson has omitted the verifica- “b [p. xxi.] tion of these passages in his 2nd Ed. ]
526 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
of Baptism, and imposition of hands, it remains, that we
——— speak of the third Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the
Lord or of the Lord’s Supper; because these three Sacra- ments follow after one another; for by the grace of Christ we are cleansed from our sins, by the grace of imposition of hands we are confirmed in what is good for the [spiritual] conflict; but this grace of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord cherishes and increases the grace of Bap- tism, and of imposition of hands; since the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord is a sign deputed by Divine in- stitution to signify the spiritual nourishment of a man in God, by the assistance of which the spiritual Life is preserved, and by the want of which it fails. He that is Truth itself saying, ‘Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink His Blood, ye have no Life in you.’” In a Confession of their faith sent to Vladislaus, king of Bohemia and Hungary, about the year 1508, they speak of the Eucharist
in the following manner‘.
Because the Latin used by these Bohemians is somewhat singular, I will therefore give it my reader here in the margin, that he may judge whether I attain it or not. ‘ Jam post Sacra- mentum Baptismi, et manus impo- sitionem, restat de tertio Sacramento, se. Dominici Corporis et Sanguinis, seu Cone Dominice pertractandum, quia illa triaSacramenta sunt continua. Nam per gratiam Baptismi a peccato mundamur, per gratiam manus impo- sitionis in bono ad pugnam roboramur. Ipsa autem gratia Sacramenti Domi- nici Corporis et Sanguinis gratiam Baptismi et manus impositionis nu- trit ef augmentat: cum Sacramentum Dominici Corporis et Sanguinis sit sig- num ex Divina institutione deputatum ad significandum efficaciter spiritualem nutritionem hominis in Deo, qua as- sistente vita spiritualis conservatur, et qua deficiente deficit, dicente Veritate, Joh. vi. ‘ Nisi manducayeritis Carnem Filii hominis, &e.’’ [Confessio Wal- densium, p. 18. Ed. Basil. 1568. BS. 8vo. D. 284. Bod]. ]
ad Fide ipsa, quam Scripturarum sanctarum ministerio hausimus, credi- mus, lingua quoque nostra resonamus. Ubicunque dignus Sacerdos cum fido populo juxta sensum et Christi inten- tionem Ecclesiaque ordinationem ora-
“ΒΥ that faith, which we have
tionem faciens, hujusmodi verbis vide- licet, Hoc est Corpus Meum, Hic est Sanguis Meus, testificatus fuerit: con- festim preesens panis est Corpus Christi in mortem pro nobis oblatum. Vinum similiter preesens est Sanguis Ejus pro nobis effusus in peccatorum remissio- nem. Hee fidei nostre professio yerbis Christi firmatur ab Evangelistis, et a S. Paulo conscriptis. Ad hane pro- fessionem etiam istud accedat hoc Corpus Christi et Sanguis Ejus, juxta Christi et Ecclesiz quoque Ejus in- stitutionem, sub panis vinique speciebus utrisque in commemorationem 1718 mortis, Sanguinis etiam effusionem Ip- sius, quemadmodum ait, Hoe facite in Meam commemorationem, sumi debet, Deinde mors Christi, verbo Evangelii, atque bona utilia morte Ejus disposita, annuntianda sunt; similiter spes fusi Sanguinis, ut Apostolus testatur: Quo- tiescunque (ait) manducabitis panem hune, et calicem Domini bibetis, mor- tem Domini annuntiabitis donec veniat. Tertio, pro veritatis spiritalis notitia, de qua Joh. Evangelista scribit: in certificationem similiter donationis, sumptionis, usus, acceptionis, veritatis, per fidem in spe, sicut ait Dominus, Accipite et comedite: Accipite et bi- bite.—[ Fasciculus Rerum, p. 165, Ed, Brown. |
JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST. 527
imbibed by the ministry of the Holy Scriptures, we believe and declare with our tongues, wherever a worthy Priest, with a faithful people, offering prayer according to the sense and intention of Christ and the ordination of the Church, has solemnly used these words, ‘ This is My Body, This is My Blood,’ forthwith the Bread there present is the Body of Christ offered for us, and the Wine there present is likewise His Blood, shed for the remission of sins; this profession of our faith is confirmed by the words of Christ, written by the Evangelists and St. Paul. It may further be added to this profession, that this Body and Blood of His, according to the institution of Christ and His Church, ought to be received under both species of Bread and Wine, in commemoration of His Death and shedding of His Blood, as He says, ‘ Do ye this in remembrance of Me.’ Further, the Death of Christ, ac- cording to the word of the Gospel, and the advantageous benefits bestowed by His Death, are to be set forth, as like- wise the hope of His Blood, as the Apostle testifies; ‘As often,’ says he, ‘as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup of the Lord, ye do shew forth the Death of the Lord, until He come.’ Thirdly, for [setting forth] the knowledge of spiritual truth, concerning which John the Evangelist [speaks]; as likewise for the assurance of the giving, receiving, use, ac- ceptance of the truth by faith in hope, as the Lord says, ‘Take, eat,’ ‘Take, drink.’” ‘Together with this Confession, they sent to the king an Apology, in answer to a famous Doctor, who was a notable adversary to them and their doc- trine ; in which they argue against him to this effect, viz., that what is received in the Sacrament is either distinct from that Christ, Who is at God’s right hand; and then why do men worship Him at all? Or else it is the same Christ; and then, why do not they worship Him, after He has been re- ceived by the Priest or by any faithful men, as well as before? And they add*, “Certainly they ought rather to do this according to the precept of faith; for Christ is in a more
e “Et certe deberent hoc facere ex precepto fidei plus, quia digniore modo est in homine quam in Sacramento:
in perpetuum, sicut potest dici et con- firmari ex verbis Christi, ubi dicit, Qui manducat hune panem vivet in eter-
quia propter hoc est in Sacramento ad tempus, ut Eum homines sumant cum reverentia, non solum ad tempus, sed
num.”’—{Responsio Excusatoria Fra- trum Waldensium; Fascicul. Rerum, vol. i. p. 185.]
SECT. Vv.
CHAP. Il.
528 JOHN VI. MEANT OF THE EUCHARIST.
worthy manner in the man, than in the Sacrament; for © He is in the Sacrament for a while to this end, that men © may receive Him with reverence, not only for a time, but for ever; as may be affirmed and proved from the words of Christ, where He says, ‘ He that eateth of this Bread shall live for ever.’””? Now this authority is of greater weight with me, than that of any other Church now in the world, except our own, would be; not only because they were the first-fruits of the Reformation, but because their constitution was episcopal, and they retained confirmation, as we also do; and it is very evident, as Mr. Dorrington observes to me, that in the passage above cited they are declaring or arguing against transubstantiation, and J may add, the Com- munion in one kind only. And it is not unworthy our notice, that though they do expressly apply John vi. to the Eucharist in all three citations, yet they do in the second passage suppose that our Saviour intended in this context to represent Divine Truth as well as His Body and Blood ; nay, in the last words of that passage they clearly take the words of institution in the same manner. They who penned the Confession, [were] more probably well versed in the writings of Origen and St. Jerome, from whence they took these hints.
It is true, that these confessions are found in the Fascicvu- LUS RERUM, (published first by Orthuinus Gratius, A.D. 1535, and here in England by Mr. Brown about the year 1690,) and are there said to have been drawn and presented by the Waldenses; but the Rev. Mr. Dorrington assures me that this is only by a vulgar mistake, whereby it often happens, that things done or said in reality by the Bohemians are attributed to the Waldenses; they being two several bodies of men that joined in the same cause against the Church of Rome. I shall say no more of this matter, since Mr. Dor- rington gives the world leave to expect a very full and per- fect account of the Churches of the Bohemian brethren, if it please God to favour his studies.
[He never lived to accomplish this work. }
A PARAPHRASE
ON JOHN vi. 26—36, 47—64.
IN WHICH I HAVE TAKEN THE LIBERTY OF TRANSLATING SOME WORDS ' OTHERWISE THAN THEY ARE TURNED BY OUR ENGLISH TRANSLATORS.
Ver. 26.—Amen, Amen I say unto you, and it concerns you greatly to consider and understand what I tell you, ye seek Me, not because ye saw the miracles, and from thence conclude, as ye ought to do, that I am the Messias; but be- cause ye did eat of the loaves and fishes multiplied mira- culously by Me, and were filled ; and so expect, that I should ver. 9, maintain you in the same manner for the future.
Ver. 27. I advise you, that you labour not for the meat that perisheth, such as I lately gave you; but for that mysterious meat that endureth, in it’s effects at least, to everlasting life, or so as to become an eternal maintenance; which the Son of Man, Who lately gave you that plentiful entertainment, shall hereafter give unto as many of you, as are willing and fit to receive it; for Him hath God the Father sealed, or com- missioned to promise such maintenance.
N.B. That ζωὴ signifies ‘maintenance, and Cay ‘to be subsisted’ or ‘maintained,’ is a thing of which learned men want no proof.
Ver. 28. Now because Christ had spoken of labouring, therefore they said unto Him, what shall we do, that we may do ver. 27. the work of God; and so procure this eternal maintenance, of which Thou speakest?
Ver. 29. In answer to this question, Jesus said unto them, this is the work of God, meant by Me, that ye believe in Him, ver. 27. Whom He hath sent, that is, in Me [and particularly as to
{what I am now going to say concerning the Meat which
fendureth to everlasting Life;| and this is really a work or
labour of the mind; it consists not in following Me with a
bodily fatigue, in getting boats, and rowing, and sailing after
Me, as you have now done, but in submitting to Me, as [to ver. 24, 26. JOHNSON, -M m
ver. 15.
yer. 34. miCors χ- 9.
Exod. xvii. Numb, xx.
530 PARAPHRASE ON JOHN VI.
what I am now going to teach you:] and this is a work very hard to be done by men of your temper.
Ver. 30. They said therefore unto Him, what sign shewest Thou, that we may see it, and believe that Thou art the Mes- sias? what miracle dost Thou work? as to Thy giving us one meal’s meat by unknown means, that is not to be com- pared to what was done by Moses:
Ver. 31. For our Fathers did feed upon manna in the wil- derness for forty years together, as it is written, He gave them food from heaven.
N.B. I turn φαγεῖν here and throughout this discourse, as likewise τρώ- yew, not “eat,” but “feed upon,” as implying not the act of eating once and away, sometimes or occasionally; but a constant daily supplying our natural wants; such was the manducation of the Israelites, who fed upon manna for forty years, during the whole time of their pilgrimage in the desert; and it is very evident, that the people followed Him in expecta- tion, that He would maintain them in some such manner. We find, that when they had been witnesses to the miracle of multiplying the loaves, they were endeavouring “by force to make Him a king,” they thought Him the only person fit to be a king or general, when they found that He was able to subsist an army by His miracles; they therefore, beyond all doubt, hoped to have a constant provision furnished by Him, and followed Him on this presumption. And in correspondence to this I suppose St. Paul’s words should thus be rendered, “ Our fathers did all feed upon the same spiritual meat, and they all made the same spiritual liquor their drink” (they in type, we in verity), “ for they all made” the stream which issued from ‘the Rock, their drink;” which stream “ followed them” for thirty-eight years together, from Rephidim to Cades Barnea. In both places a constant daily eating and drinking is meant.
Ver. 32. Jesus said unto them by way of reply, Amen, Amen I say unto you, and it is what particularly deserves your consideration ; Moses gave you not that mysterious Bread from heaven, of which I have now been speaking; but My Father* is now about to give you the true mysterious Bread from heaven.
Ver. 33. For the Bread of God is that Bread which cometh down from heaven and giveth life or maintenance to that part of the world which labours for it.
N.B. “The Bread of God” signifies, in Seripture language, any sacri-
* The present indicative often stands charist is ‘ Bread from heaven,’ I have for the future participle and the sub- shewed in my Discourse on John vi. stantive verb. See Matt. ii. 4; iii. 10; which immediately precedes this Para- xx. 22; 1 Cor. xvi. 5. How the Eu- phrase.
PARAPHRASE ON JOHN VI. 531
fice, whether animate or inanimate, which was offered to God. It is said
they do offer.” ‘The offerings of the Lord’ in this text are the same with ‘the Bread of God.’ Our translators have supplied ‘and; but that is
[“ Neither from a stranger's hand shall ye offer the Bread of your God of 35 any of these; because their corruption is in them, and blemishes be in them: they shall not be accepted for you.”] The kidneys, fat, and caul of
offering made by fire unto the Lord.” Our translators do indeed there render the word, ‘food; and so they might have done in the other places before cited, for pnb in Hebrew, ἄρτος in the Hellenistic tongue, signify all manner of victuals. Sometimes those portions of the sacrifice, which were eaien by the priests or their families, are called “the Bread of God ;’
he shall eat the Bread of His God,” “both of the most holy,” (that is, the “and of the holy” (that is, the peace-offering.) Our Saviour therefore calls g
world, and mysteriously to be eaten as such; and every animal sacrificed for sin or as a peace-offering under the Law might, if it could have spoke, have called itself “the Bread of God.’”—Further, I turn the article 6 not “he” but “that,” as if ἄρτος had been repeated; it is certain the hearers did not yet apprehend that Christ meant Himself; for they desire that his Bread might be given to them in the next verse; whereas, when they pprehended that He spake of Himself, they were offended and forsook Him.
Ver. 34. They said unto Him, Lord give us this Bread, and hat not for one meal, but for a perpetuity.
Ver. 35. Jesus said unto them, I am the Bread of Life or piritual maintenance ; he that cometh to Me [out of a desire f this spiritual Bread (not as you do for the sake of tem- oral food)], shall never suffer starving spiritual hunger; and that believeth on Me {when I promise him My Blood to ink, as well as in all other particulars] shall never suffer Killing spiritual ¢irst; [for I will give him an ample supply
f My Body and Blood.]
N.B. Our Saviour gives a direct answer to His hearers, who desired this
read ‘ for a perpetuity ; He assures them that if they come to Him, or
elieve on Him, they shall not want this mysterious Bread; or as it is
‘Ver. 27, if they laboured, they should have the meat that endureth to ever-
ting Life. It seems absurd to suppose, that our Saviour here promises
at His disciples should not hunger and thirst (that is, have an appetite) Mm 2
of the priests, “ The offerings of the Lord made by fire, the Bread of God Lev.
superfluous. ‘To offer the Bread of God’ is a phrase denoting the whole Ley. sacrificial office of the priest. And the Law speaking of maimed animals !/ says, “ Neither of these shall ye [priests] offer the Bread of your God.” _
the beast offered as a peace-offering, are expressly called “ the Bread of the Lev.
for it is said of the maimed priest, that though he may not officiate, “ yet Lev.
xxi. 6,
xxi. 8
xxii.
iii. 11.
Xxi.22.
remnant of the meal-offering and the sin-offering, of the trespass-offering,) te fa 9.
$ Vii. ἘΞ
Himself “the Bread of God,’ as He was a Sacrifice for the sins of the ΞΕ 8.
See ver. 31.
Lev. vil. 1—7. and 28—34.
Hos. iv. 8.
5S2: PARAPHRASE ON JOHN VI.
after this mysterious meat; what He promises is, that they should never die of hunger and thirst for want of it. An appetite after this meat is a blessing; the withholding of it is destructive. Our Saviour calls Himself the “‘ Bread of life,” or maintenance, in allusion to the sin-offerings of the Jews, which were the chief maintenance of the priests during the time of their attendance; for the whole sin-offering and trespass-offering belonged to the priest, and was to be eaten by him and his family, except the rump and the fat and the kidneys and the caul, whereas only the breast and shoulder of the peace-offering was the priests’. Therefore it is said of the ' priests, that “ they fed on the sin-offerings of the people.”
ΒΝ
= ae
Ver. 36. But I said unto you, that ye also have seen Me | doing miracles, and yet believe not [what I am now saying of © giving men My Flesh to eat, and My Blood to drink;] or that ye followed Me, because ye had eaten of the loaves and hoped to do so again (ver. 26), not because ye from thence concluded Me to be [a veracious infallible Master. ] Ye do not perform the labour of faith, and so the promise of eternal maintenance does not belong to you.
Ver. 47. Amen, Amen, I say unto you, and it is a matter of the greatest consequence, he that believeth on Me, and so per- formeth the labour or work of God, hath for his reward or wages in hand, eternal life or maintenance. |
Ver. 48. And I Myself am that Bread of eternal life or maintenance. I Myself am to be eaten in a mysterio manner. ‘
Ver. 49. Your fathers did feed upon manna in the wilder ness for forty years together, and yet are dead ;
Ver. 50. But the excellency of this Bread, which I no promise, is, that this is the Bread which comes down fro heaven, that a man may feed upon it, and not die the death o a sinner.
Ver. 51. “I myself am the living or life-giving Bread, whic came down from heaven; if any man feed on this Bread in th mysterious manner, which I will hereafter discover, he sha live for ever or be maintained to an eternal duration.—
N.B. Some of the anc’ents seem to suppose, that these and the foregoin words may be understood either of the Sacrament, or of the Holy Ghos or of Christ’s doctrine. I have above given instances of this from ὃ Augustine, who yet perpetually understands the following verses of the Eucharist only, and rather mentions this as a gloss on the foregoing wor
than insists upon it as the primary sense; and indeed I can see no reason : to believe that our Saviour meant one thing in the foregoing words, another
PARAPHRASE ON JOHN VI. 533
in the following. It may be allowed that our Saviour in the foregoing words speaks of Himself only as potential food; just as the animal sacrifice for the sins of private persons might, if it could have spoke, have said, while it was yet alive, to the Jewish priests, “I am the Bread of God, the Bread of life or maintenance for you.” Not that it had been possible for the ptiests to eat every part of such animal sacrifice, though it had been allowed them to do it; but by a usual synecdoche of the part for the whole, in the following words He lets them know, that not His whole Person but His Flesh only was actually to become their food. And it is evident that our Saviour uses the phrases of ‘eating Me, and ‘ eating My Flesh, in the same sense, as may be seen by comparing this verse with the 57th; and that therefore to make our Saviour intend two several things in what goes before and in what follows, is only a conjectural gloss.
Ver. 51.—And the Bread which I will give, is not My entire Person, but My Flesh, Which I will give for the life or main- tenance of the world, on condition that it do believe in Me.
N.B. I have before shewed, how Christ gave His natural Body to God by the pledge of His Sacramental Body; therefore here He makes no dis-
tinction; because in giving one He did in effect give the other, first to God, and then to men.
Ver. 52. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us His Flesh to feed upon? It is evident one carcase can never maintain so great a multitude, much less the whole world, if we could find in our hearts to eat it.
Ver. 53. Then Jesus said unto them, Except ye, who now hear Me, do feed upon the Flesh of the Son of Man and make His Blood your drink, ye have no spiritual life in you, or ye cannot have any thing in you, whereby to support your spiritual life.
Ver. 54. Whoso feedeth on My Flesh and maketh My Blood his drink, hath eternal life or maintenance, and I will raise him up at the last day, to an endless state of happiness.
Ver. 55. For My Flesh is indeed spiritual life-giving meat ; and My Blood is indeed spiritual life-giving drink.
Ver. 56. He that feedeth on My Flesh, and maketh My Blood his drink, he dwelleth in Me, and I in him, by means of the one Spirit thereby communicated to him. See ver. 63.
Ver. 57. As the Father, Who lives, that is, is the fountain of Life, sent Me,and I live by the Father ; so he who feedeth on. Me in the mysterious manner, which I will hereafter discover, even he shall live or be maintained by Me.
See ch. viii. 47,
534 PARAPHRASE ON JOHN VI.
Ver. 58. This is the Bread which is come down from heaven to be fed upon, not as your fathers fed upon manna in the wilderness with unbelieving hearts, and so are dead in their sins; he that feedeth on this Bread shall live or be maintained for ever.
Ver. 59. These things said He in the synagogue, as He taught in Capernaum. i
Ver. 60. Many therefore of His disciples, when they had heard this discourse of His feeding them with His Flesh and making His Blood their drink, said, This is a hard saying, who can hear or believe it ? .
Ver. 61. When Jesus knew in Himself, that His disciples murmured at it, He said unto them, Doth this cause you to be offended, or to stumble ? )
Ver. 62. What, and if you shall see the Son of Man to ascend up into heaven, where He was before? Will ye not then think what I now say of feeding men with My Flesh to be more incredible than it can seem at present? And yet He will certainly ascend thither clothed with His Flesh, and will as certainly give His Flesh to be fed upon by men.
Ver. 63. It is the Divine Spirit, that giveth life ; and there- fore, when I promised My Flesh as an eternal maintenance to them who eat and drink it, you ought so to understand Me, as if I intended, together with My Flesh and Blood, t convey to men the power of the Spirit: for the Flesh of itse profiteth not at all to the end, which I propose, of giving you an eternal Life or maintenance, whether by Flesh you understand My natural Body, or any other material thin dignified with that character; the words which I speak or the promises which I pronounce, when I mentioned My Flesh and Blood, are not only material visible things, but they hkewise contain an assurance of spirit and life or eternal maintenance,
Ver, 64. But there are some of you who believe not, or put no trust in Me, as to the promise I have been now making of giving My Flesh to be eat, and My Blood to be drunk, You will not perform the labour, and so cannot receive the wages in hand, which I promise to all that submit to the condition.
A very learned friend having several times hinted to me his dislike of the explication given by me of this context in John vi., I desired him to draw up in writing his objections against me on this head; he complied with my request ; and here I present my reader with his objections, and my answers to them, paragraph by paragraph.
FIRST PARAGRAPH.
‘Our Saviour, in the sixth of St. John, from ver. 27 to ver. 51, so often speaks of coming to and believing on Him as a person sent from God, that there is to me no appear- ance that He intended any thing more. Nor is it, I think, reasonable to believe, that He spake of a different thing in the following part of His discourse.’
ANSWER.
There was good reason, and even a necessity, that Christ should often speak of believing and coming to Him, when He was teaching such a doctrine as He found so disagreeable to His hearers, that they seemed one and all to be disposed to abandon Him: and especially, because at the beginning of His discourse He had declared faith to be that “ work,” or labour, which alone could qualify men “to eat His Flesh,” or “that meat which endured to everlasting Life.”
I am persuaded that in this first paragraph I can discern the principal occasion of your mistake in this point ; namely, that you suppose our Saviour to speak of “coming to,’ and “believing” on Himself as a person sent from God only, For you say, there is “no appearance that he mtended any thing more.” But now it appears evident to me, that He here speaks of believing in Himself not only as a person sent from God, but as one that also promised His Flesh to be eat, and His Blood to be drunk in a mysterious manner. And it was the want of this faith chiefly, which Christ resented in His hearers. For,
1. It is so far from being true, that a general faith in
ver. 27,
ver. 60, 61. 66.
ver. 14.
ver. 26,
ver. 67.
536 ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS AGAINST
Christ, as sent from God, was the only thing required by our Saviour in this context, that so far as appears, all His present hearers did already actually believe Him to be such a person. For all that murmured, all that went back from walking any more with Him, are expressly called “ disci- ples ;” and it is not credible that they should be so styled, except they had believed in Christ as the Messias. The very worst of His present hearers, except Judas, were they who had seen the miracle of the loaves and fishes. And yet even these were believers in Christ at large; for “the men who had seen the miracle which Jesus did, said, This is of a truth that Prophet that should come into the world.” And therefore, if to “ believe in Christ,” and “ eat His Flesh,” were phrases of the same signification, then all these murmurers, even they that could not bear to hear of eating Christ’s Flesh, had yet done that which they could not endure to hear of: they had eat His Flesh in your sense of these words, they had owned Christ the great Prophet, and had been His dis- ciples, and were so until they were told of the necessity of eating of their Master’s Flesh. I call them who had seen the miracle of the loaves and fishes the worst of Christ’s present hearers, except Judas; because they followed Him rather for the sake of the loaves than on account of the © miracle, as they are told by Christ Himself: they had a greater regard to things temporal than spiritual; a thing too incident to them that believe in Christ, as we find by daily experience.
2. However it is certain that eleven of the Apostles had now for many months, not to say years, believed in Christ as © a person sent from God, and did at this time continue so to do; therefore they must certainly have eat Christ’s Flesh — all this time, and did so now, according to your opinion. Yet if they had, or did eat His Flesh, it was more than they — knew ; for they also were so shocked with what He had said — concerning the eating of His Flesh, that our Saviour saw — occasion to ask them, “ Will ye also go away?” Therefore it is certain, that in the judgment of these Apostles, Christ in this place, under the phrase of eating His Flesh, had taught — them some new doctrine. For if they had believed that He — required them only to acknowledge Him as a person sent —
THE PARAPHRASE ON JOHN VI. 537
from God, this was no more than what they had long since been convinced of; and Christ, by explaining this dark phrase according to your meaning, might presently have set them right. And God forbid that any man should suppose that our Divine Master caused some to apostatize, and shook the faith of His own good Apostles, rather than He would explain to them a very singular phrase that no man had ever used before Him, when it imported no more as you would have it than a persuasion of His Divine mission, which they would have acknowledged without hesitation.
3. The sacred text doth clearly teach us that the doctrine here taught contained very considerable difficulties, and was hard to be digested. The main body of the hearers found no such difficulties in owning Him to be that great Prophet that should come into the world; and they thus express their un- belief, “ How can this Man give us His Flesh to eat?” And when our Saviour had said, “ This is that Bread which came down from heaven,”’ .. . they presently reply, “ This is an hard
saying, who can hear it?” And it was “at this,” that “ Jesus ver.
knew in Himself, His disciples murmured.” Nay farther, our Saviour in His preface to this discourse plainly intimates that what He was now going to say required a very laborious faith in His hearers, and at the same time hints to us the sum of that doctrine which He was going to inculcate, namely, that He would hereafter give His disciples “ Bread which should endure to everlasting life.” And when they
murmured at it, He says, “doth this offend you?” that is, v
does it cause you to stumble into unbelief? I know it does. He adds, “ What, and if ye shall see the Son of Man ascend up” into heaven, “where He was before?” If you cannot believe Me now, how will you be able to believe that you can eat My Flesh, when I shall be removed wholly out of your sight as far as heaven is from earth? He not only acknow- ledges that the point He was now pressing was hard to be believed, but that it would hereafter be harder still. It there- fore could not be His mission from God. For that was never hard to them who saw and considered His miracles. And His resurrection and ascension into heaven would make it ‘more easy still, because by this means His Divine power was still made more manifest. It was therefore the mysterious
ver.
ver.
ver.
27.
s G1
ver. 27. 29.
538 ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS AGAINST
or Sacramental eating of His Flesh which He here taught; which is a thing very different from believing Him to be a person sent from God, though this belief was a necessary qualification for the internal and beneficial eating Christ’s mystical Flesh.
4. I have shewed in the foregoing Discourse on John vi. that faith is the work or labour; eating Christ’s Flesh and drinking His Blood the reward of that labour; and this dis- tinction is made by Christ Himself. And the labour and reward cannot in the nature of things be the same. Yet they must be the same, if, as you say, ‘to believe in Christ’ and ‘to eat His Flesh’ are but two expressions without any difference in true sense and meaning.
Whereas you say our Saviour “so often” speaks of coming to Him and believing on Him, I cannot find that He speaks of coming to Him, or believing on Him, from ver. 27 to ver. 64 above eight times; whereas He nine times speaks of eat- ing or drinking, and seven times of the meat or drink.
SECOND PARAGRAPH.
‘Indeed He there (viz., in the following part of His dis- course) expresses Himself more obscurely, because He saw that the plainest instructions and even miracles would not convince many of His followers.’
ANSWER.
I have shewed, in answer to the first paragraph, that most of His hearers were actually convinced that He was a person sent from God, until they drew back because they could not believe His doctrine of the Sacrament. Will you say He involved His meaning in obscure expressions on purpose to harden them that were already hardened? Is it not more just to say, that the nature of the mystery of which He was speaking, could be expressed in no other words but what must seem obscure to them and all others unto the end of the world?
THE PARAPHRASE ON JOHN VI. 539
THIRD PARAGRAPH.
‘Perhaps, by “eating His Flesh” He might mean beliey- ing on Him when crucified, since ver. 51 He seems to speak of His Death.’
ANSWER.
Your expression shews that you are not clear in the point. I cannot wonder at this. For we must all be at uncertain- ties in expounding Scripture, if we set on this work without having a just regard to the analogy of the words and phrases used in that sacred Book, and rather attend to our own fancies and conjectures than to the use of the same expres- sions in other texts. It is clear from my answer to the first paragraph, No. 3, that what Christ here demanded of them to believe had some considerable difficulty in it. But there was no difficulty in believing that He was to die. If indeed they had believed Him to be the Messiah, they would, ac- cording to the vulgar notion of the Jews, have expected that John xii.34. He should have abode on earth for ever. But since they did not, according to you, esteem Him a person sent from God, what should make His Death, or the manner of it, seem incredible? But I see no occasion to enlarge on this head, since you are pleased in effect to revoke this in paragraph 6 and 8 below.
FOURTH PARAGRAPH.
‘ However, when they understood Him in a gross, literal sense, he adds, ver. 63, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth,” &c. g.d. I speak not unto you of oral eating, but of such a mental eating of Me, as will produce in you a spiritual life, and bring you to an eternal Life hereafter.’
ANSWER.
When you deny that our Saviour did intend oral mandu- cation, you allege no reason for your opinion. I readily own, and earnestly contend, that He meant not such an oral man- ducation as excluded what is mental; nay, I assert that the
540 ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS AGAINST
mental manducation is the main point. And every good communicant is a full evidence that these two manducations are perfectly consistent with each other, and ought not to be separated. Yet literal bodily eating cannot be excluded, ex- cept you can shew some absurdity implied im this sense of the word. I have at large explained this text in the fore- going book, when I shew on what texts of Scripture the ancients grounded their doctrine, that “the Holy Ghost made the symbols the Body and Blood” of Christ.
FIFTH PARAGRAPH.
‘« But there are some of you,” says He, “that believe not,” viz., that I am a person sent from God, as in ver. 36.
ANSWER.
I find no such explanation in ver. 36. I must observe, that here you depart from your notion mentioned in para- graph 3, and reassume your former supposition, that to eat Christ’s Flesh is to believe Him a person sent from God, which I have fully disproved in the answer to paragraph the first.
SIXTH PARAGRAPH.
‘If He had been speaking of believing the mystery of the Eucharist, He might rather have ‘said, ‘There are none of you that believe,” since the sum total of the belief, even of His Apostles, was but this, ver. 69, “ We believe and are sure that Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God ;” which yet He never charges with any defect, and doubtless was therefore all that He then required of His followers.’
ANSWER.
You forget, dear Sir, the words which are the first and principal in St. Peter’s confession, viz., “Lord, to whom shall we go, Thou hast the words of eternal life.’ For by this St. Peter declares his assent to all that Christ had said, but especially to His doctrine of attaining eternal Life by
THE PARAPHRASE ON JOHN VI. 541.
eating His Flesh. He acknowledges eternal Life to be at His disposal, and to be had by such means as He had been ex- pressing. It is true, Christ had not here fully opened the nature of eating His Flesh and Blood, but only hinted what hereafter He designed more perfectly to reveal. Nor on the other side had He yet fully performed the office of the Messiah ; He had not yet died, nor rose again, nor ascended into heaven. Until all this was done they could not believe in Him, as one that had wholly discharged His Messiahship, nor as one that had yet actually given His Flesh to be eat. It was sufficient in both points to believe in what He had hitherto said or done, and to rely on His promise, that the rest should hereafter be accomplished in its season.
SEVENTH PARAGRAPH.
‘I think it must be taken for granted, that our Saviour in this discourse speaks of what all His followers might have done, if they had not been of an obstinate and unteaehable temper; otherwise it would reflect upon His wisdom and goodness. But if He speaks of eating Sacramentally, this could not be performed by any of them before the institu- tion of the Eucharist.’
ANSWER.
It would indeed have been a reflection upon His wisdom and goodness, if He had commanded them to do that out of hand, which could not possibly have been done until some time after. But He requires nothing to be done out of hand, but to believe in the promise which He gave them of making His Flesh to be meat indeed, His Blood drink indeed. Nay, He expresses Himself in the future tense when He speaks of the Sacrament, as of “Bread, which the Son of Man shall give:” and says, “The Bread which 1 shall give is My Flesh.” This is a demonstration that He did not speak of eating His Flesh, as of a thing to be done out of hand. The rest is answered, in what I have said to the sixth paragraph.
EIGHTH PARAGRAPH.
‘Nor could they understand Him in such a sense, when His Death, which this [Sacrament] was to represent, was
ver. 27.
Matt. xvi.
1,
542 ANSWER TO OBJECTIONS AGAINST
not then manifested even to His Apostles; but we find them after this startled, and offended at the mention of it. For they, as well as other of the Jews, were a long time before they could be cured of their fond opinion, that their Messiah was to be a temporal prince.’
ANSWER,
As they could believe His Death yet to come, so they could believe His Sacrament, though not yet instituted ; and this was all that Christ now required of them. I desire you to compare this paragraph with paragraph 3.
NINTH PARAGRAPH.
‘As to your laying so great a stress upon the necessity of understanding the same phrase (used but twice by our Saviour) in the same sense; it may be answered, that our Saviour might speak with allusion to the Sacrament, though not directly of it.’
ANSWER.
To speak in allusion to a thing utterly unknown before, is a figure of speech not to be met with in any book of rhetoric. I can at present remember nothing like to it, except it be proving or illustrating a thing unknown by a thing less known. But what is the thing of which He in- tended to speak, when He speaks in allusion to the Sacra- ment? Your answer must be according to your opinion here laid down, that He either speaks of Himself, as a person sent from God, or as a person that was to suffer death. But I should rather choose to say, that the Sacrament was an allusion to Christ’s Person, especially as put to death, than that His Person, particularly as crucified, was an allusion to the Sacrament ; which is what you here seem to say.
TENTH PARAGRAPH,
‘And so eating of His Flesh, and drinking of His Blood may signify the same here as in the Sacrament, excepting
only the oral manducation, which the context will by no means bear,’
THE PARAPHRASE ON JOHN VI. 543
ANSWER.
This is, in effect, to confess that this phrase is used in two senses, and in next paragraph you expressly own it.
ELEVENTH PARAGRAPH.
- ‘But after all, the words of institution, and the words of St. John seem to me not to be the same phrases. One men- tions a proper subject of oral manducation, and expressly requires it, the other does neither. One may be understood of eating and drinking literally, the other cannot.’
ANSWER.
How far you have proved that the Bread or Flesh in St. John is not capable of oral manducation, I must leave to your own reflection. You allow that to “eat Christ’s Flesh,” and to “eat His Body” are two several phrases, and mean two different things; therefore I have no more to say, but that you have laid yourself open to the consequences of this opinion, which have sufficiently, I think, been shewed in my Discourse on this context, and toward the latter end of it. Pray, why is not Christ’s ‘ Flesh’ as capable of oral mandu- cation as His ‘ Body?’ If Christ’s Body signifies not His natural but Sacramental Body, why may not and ought not His Flesh to denote, not His natural, but Sacramental Flesh ?
END OF VOL. I.
OXFORD: PRINTED BY I, SHRIMPTON,
CORRIGENDA.
In the Prefatory Epistle, p. 41. the reference to Cardinal Bona’s work De Rebus Liturgicis should be, [cap. x. p. 862. Ed. Antverp. 1677. ] In p. 48. for “ Frontanellense” read ‘ Fontanellense.’
APPENDIX.
S. Cremens Romanus floruit A.D. 65. Ed. Hefele, 1842. (a) Epist. ad Corinth. cap. 35, 36. ““Θυσία αἰνέσεως δοξάσει pe, kai
Ee SEN a ͵ διὰ πῶς cy , “- a 3? “ ς« ¢Qr > ‘ ἐκεῖ ὁδὸς ἣν δείξω αὐτῷ τὸ σωτήριον τοῦ Θεοῦ. Αὕτη ἡ ὁδὸς, ἀγαπητοὶ, » 4. LA A , ς ΄“ > a“ A A > ΄ ΄
ἐν 7) εὕρομεν τὸ σωτήριον ἡμῶν, Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, τὸν ᾿Αρχιερέα τῶν προσ- φορῶν ἡμῶν.
(0) Ibid. cap. 40, 41. Πάντα τάξει ποιεῖν ὀφείλομεν, ὅσα ὁ Δεσπότης > “ ΦΑΣΙ A ‘ , , x ‘ ἐπιτελεῖν ἐκέλευσεν κατὰ καιροὺς τεταγμένους. Τάς τε προσφορὰς καὶ λει-
, ΄“ ~ roupyias ἐπιτελεῖσθαι, καὶ οὐκ εἰκῆ ἤ ἀτάκτως ἐκέλευσεν γίνεσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ὡρισμένοις καιροῖς καὶ ὥραις. Ποῦ τε καὶ διὰ τίνων ἐπιτελεῖσθαι θέλει,
“ ~ a
Αὐτὸς ὥρισεν τῇ ὑπερτάτῃ Αὐτοῦ βουλήσει, ἵν᾿ ὁσίως πάντα τὰ γινόμενα > > , > ΄ Py a : rt ae ς- φ a ev εὐδοκήσει εὐπρόσδεκτα εἴη τῷ θελήματι Αὐτοῦ. Οἱ οὖν τοῖς προστεταγ- μένοις καιροῖς ποιοῦντες τὰς προσφορὰς αὐτῶν εὐπρόσδεκτοί τε καὶ μακάριοι" τοῖς γὰρ νομίμοις τοῦ Δεσπότου ἀκολουθοῦντες οὐ διαμαρτάνουσιν. Τῷ γὰ
γὰρ νομίμ μαρ . Τῷ γὰρ > “ι 997 , , 3. κα ‘ σι ἃ a ed c , Apxtepet ἰδίαι Λειτουργίαι δεδομέναι εἰσὶν, καὶ τοῖς Ἱερεῦσιν ἴδιος 6 τόπος
, A sos 4." ’ Φυϑ ν, . 6 “ῳ αᾳ«Ω:ᾺΣ΄'ᾳ » προστέτακται, καὶ Λεῦίταις ἰδίαι διακονίαι émikewvrat’ ὁ Aaixds ἄνθρωπος τοῖς λαϊκοῖς προστάγμασι δέδεται. Ἕκαστος ὑμῶν, ᾿Αδελφοὶ, ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ , > , - > > - f iz , A , τάγματι εὐχαριστείτω Θεῷ. ἐν ἀγαθῇ συνειδήσει ὑπάρχων, μὴ παρεκβαίνων τὸν ὡρισμένον τῆς λειτουργίας αὐτοῦ κανόνα, ἐν σεμνότητι. Οὐ πανταχοῦ, ~ > “ > ᾿Αδελφοὶ, προσφέρονται θυσίαι ἐνδελεχισμοῦ, ἢ εὐχῶν, ἢ περὶ ἁμαρτίας, καὶ πλημμελίας, ἀλλ᾽ ἢ ἐν Ἱερουσαλὴμ μόνῃ" κἀκεῖ δε οὐκ ἐν πάντι τόπῳ προσ- ͵ > > »~ - ~ A A 4 ‘ φέρεται, GAN ἔμπροσθεν τοῦ ναοῦ πρὸς τὸ θυσιαστήριον, μωμοσκοπηθὲν τὸ προσφερόμενον διὰ τοῦ ᾿Αρχιερέως καὶ τῶν προειρημένων Λειτουργῶν. a ~ , “ “-“
Οἱ οὖν παρὰ τὸ καθῆκον τῆς βουλήσεως αὐτοῦ ποιοῦντές τι, θάνατον τὸ πρόστιμον ἔχουσιν.
(c) Ibid. cap. 44. ‘Apapria γὰρ οὐ μικρὰ ἡμῖν ἔσται, ἐὰν τοὺς ἀμέμπ-
τως καὶ ὁσίως προσενέγκοντας τὰ δῶρα τῆς ᾿Επισκοπῆς ἀποβάλωμεν. S. Ienarius floruit A.D. 101.
(a) Epist. ad Ephes. cap. 5. Μηδεὶς πλανάσθω" ἐὰν μή τις ἢ ἐντὸς τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου, ὑστερεῖται τοῦ ἄρτου τοῦ Θεοῦ.
(b) Ibid. cap. 20. Ὅτι οἱ κατ᾽ ἄνδρα κοινῇ πάντες ἐν χάριτι ἐξ ὀνό- ματος συντρέχεσθε ἐν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστῷ--εἰς τὸ ὑπακούειν ὑμᾶς τῷ ᾿Επισκόπῳ καὶ τῷ Πρεσβυτερίῳ ἀπερισπάστῳ διανοία, ἕνα ἄρτον κλῶντες, ὅς ἐστι φάρ- μακον ἀθανασίας, ἀντίδοτος τοῦ μὴ ἀποθανεῖν, ἀλλὰ ζῆν ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ διὰ παντός.
(c) Epist. ad Magnesios, cap. 1. Αιδω τὰς ᾿Εκκλησίας, ἐν αἷς ἕνωσιν εὔχομαι σαρκὸς καὶ πνεύματος ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ,
a
ιϑ
APPENDIX.
(d) Ibid. cap. 7. Πάντες οὖν ὡς εἰς Eva ναὸν συνέρχεσθε Θεοῦ, ws δες [Ἢ ΄ ς pete Coe > “ ΄ ἐπὶ ἕν θυσιαστήριον, ὡς ἐπὶ Eva ᾿1Ιησοῦν Χριστόν.
(6) Epist. ad Trallian. cap. 7. ‘O ἐντὸς Θυσιαστηρίου ὧν καθαρός ἐστιν.
(Ὁ Epist. ad Roman. cap. 7. Οὐχ ἥδομαι τροφῇ φθορᾶς, οὐδὲ ἡδοναῖς τοῦ βίου τούτου ἄρτον Θεοῦ θέλω, ὅς ἐστι σὰρξ ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἐκ σπέρματος Δαβὶδ' καὶ πόμα Θεοῦ θέλω τὸ Αἷμα Αὐτοῦ, ὅ ἐστιν ᾿Αγάπη ἄφθαρτος.
(6) Epist. ad Philadelphen. cap. 4. Σπουδάζετε οὖν μιᾷ Εὐχαριστίᾳ
= . , \ \ = , con > = - Noa , χρῆσθαι" μία γὰρ σὰρξ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἕν ποτήριον » - - σ΄ > a a , « e > , a ved eis ἕνωσιν τοῦ αἵματος Αὐτοῦ, ἕν θυσιαστήριον, ὡς εἷς ᾿Επίσκοπος, ἅμα τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ, καὶ διακόνοις, τοῖς συνδούλοις μοῦ.
(8) Epist. ad Smyrn. cap. 7. ἘἙὐχαριστίας καὶ προσευχῆς ἀπεχονται, διὰ τὸ μὴ ὁμολογεῖν, τὴν Εὐχαριστίαν σάρκα εἶναι τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν ᾿Ιησοῦ
μὴ ὁμολογεῖν, τὴν Εὐχαρ ρ ἦρος ἡμῶν "In Χριστοῦ, τὴν ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτιῶν ἡμῶν παθοῦσαν, ἣν χρηστότητι ὁ Πατὴρ a « > > 7 ΄ ΄“ - col “- > , ἤγειρεν. Οἱ οὖν ἀντιλέγοντες τῇ δωρεᾷ τοῦ Θεοῦ, συζητοῦντες ἀποθνήσκου- σιν. Συνέφερεν δὲ αὐτοῖς ἀγαπῶν, ἵνα καὶ ἀναστῶσιν.
(i) Ibid. cap. 8. ᾿Ἐκείνη βεβαία Ἐὐχαριστία ἡγείσθω, ἡ ὑπὸ τὸν ᾿Επί-
> Ry Sor ΕἾΕΝ. > , σκοπὸν οὖσα, ἢ ᾧ ἂν αὐτὸς ἐπιτρέψῃ.
S. Justrinus Martyr. floruit A.D. 140. Edit. Parisiis, A.D. 1742. (a) Apologia prima, pp. 82-3. quondam secunda dicta, cap. 65,
, “ - ~ ? ~ a A ΄ a 66. προσφέρεται τῷ προεστῶτι τῶν ᾿Αδελφῶν ἄρτος, καὶ ποτήριον ὕδατος, “ x , “- - καὶ κράματος, kal ovtos λαβὼν, αἶνον καὶ δόξαν τῷ Πατρὶ τῶν ὅλων διὰ ear “ε a κ a ΄ ac , > ΄ Ξ ‘ > τοῦ ὀνόματος τοῦ Ytov, Kat Tov Πνεύματος Tov Αγίου, ἀναπέμπει Kat Evya- ριστίαν ὑπὲρ τοῦ κατηξιώσασθαι τούτων παρ᾽ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ πολὺ ποιεῖται" οὗ ΄ ‘ > A ἣν A > , a“ c ‘ % > συντελέσαντος Tas εὐχὰς, Kal τὴν Εὐχαριστίαν, πᾶς ὁ παρὼν λαὸς ἐπευφη- a > , a ᾿Ξ pet λέγων, ᾿Αμὴν.---ΕΑἩὐχαριστήσαντος δὲ τοῦ Προεστῶτος, καὶ ἐπευφημήσαν- ~ - , Dy 6 -~ , col Tos παντὸς τοῦ λαοῦ, of καλούμενοι παρ᾽ ἡμῶν διάκονοι, διδόασιν ἑκάστῳ τῶν ΄ ΄ eet ~ > , ΒΩ ν ww Ve παρόντων μεταλαβεῖν ἀπὸ τοῦ ἙΕὐχαριστηθέντος ἄρτου καὶ οἴνου, kat ὕδα- ‘ - > a > , ‘ Cee A “ - Ses Tos, Kal τοῖς οὐ παροῦσιν ἀποφέρουσιν" καὶ ἣ τροφὴ αὕτη καλεῖται Tap Cn > ’ - > we “ ΕΥ̓ > aA a ΄, ἡμῶν Εὐχαριστία, ἧς οὐδενὶ ἄλλῳ μετασχεῖν ἐξόν ἐστιν, ἢ τῷ πιστεύοντι 3 - πε x , S09) ee ‘ ΄ ἀληθῆ εἶναι τὰ δεδιδαγμένα ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν, καὶ λουσαμένῳ τὸ ὑπὲρ ἀφέσεως c a ‘ > > ͵ " ‘ a , « ‘ ἁμαρτιῶν καὶ εἰς ἀναγέννησιν λουτρὸν, καὶ οὕτως βιώσαντι, ὡς Χριστὸς ΄ a > " ε \ ” δδὲ ᾿ ΄ - , = παρέδωκεν" οὐ yap ὡς κοινὸν ἄρτον, οὐδὲ κοινὸν πόμα, ταῦτα λαμβάνομεν ἀλλ᾽ ὅν τρόπον διὰ λόγου Θεοῦ σαρκοποιηθεὶς ᾿Ιησοῦς Χριστὸς, ὁ Σωτὴρ con ‘ , ‘ φΘ £518 , con » e “ ‘ A ᾶ2 ἡμῶν, καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας ἡμῶν ἔσχεν" οὕτως καὶ τὴν δὲ > - ,᾿͵ -~ > > -~ > - ‘ > b , εὐχῆς λόγου τοῦ map αὐτοῦ εὐχαριστηθεῖσαν τροφὴν, ἐξ ἧς σάρκες καὶ αἷμα κατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶν, ἐκείνου τοῦ σαρκοποιηθέντος ᾿Ιησοῦ ‘ , ‘ ec > , = © A > , > - ΄ καὶ σάρκα καὶ αἷμα ἐδιδάχθημεν εἶναι. Οἱ γὰρ ᾿Απόστολοι ἐν τοῖς γινομέ-
>> “worn > ΄ a a > r “ ΄, νοις ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν ἀπομνημονεύμασιν, ἃ καλεῖται Εὐαγγέλια, οὕτως παρέδωκαν
APPENDIX. 3
5 , ~ , - ~ ἐντετάλθαι αὐτοῖς τὸν ᾿Ιησοῦν, λαβόντα ἄρτον, εὐχαριστήσαντα εἰπεῖν, Τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἀνάμνησίν μου. τουτέστι τὸ Σῶμά pov’ καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ι , ΄ ‘ > , ? ~ “δ Ἦν A 8 x @potws λαβόντα, καὶ εὐχαριστήσαντα εἰπεῖν, τοῦτό ἐστι TO αἱμά μου, καὶ μόνοις αὐτοῖς μεταδοῦναι.
oe (Ὁ) Dialog. cum Tryphone, p. 137. ‘H τῆς σεμιδάλεως προσφορὰ ἡ σα. ἢ, - , ἘΠΕῚ A , , - , ὑπὲρ τῶν καθαριζομένων ἀπὸ τῆς λέπρας προσφέρεσθαι παραδοθεῖσα, τύπος > aH a ’ , a > > 7 a , > = 4 ἦν τοῦ ἄρτου τῆς Εὐχαριστίας, ὃν εἰς ἀνάμνησιν τοῦ πάθους Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς , ΄- ΄ς Κύριος ἡμῶν παρέδωκε ποιεῖν. “ » - ~ ~ (c) Mor post. Περὶ τῶν ev πάντι τόπῳ ὑφ᾽ ἡμῶν τῶν ἐθνῶν προσφε- βομένων αὐτῷ (Θεῷ) θυσιῶν, τουτέστι τοῦ ἄρτου τῆς Εὐχαριστίας, καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου ὁμοίως τῆς Ἐὐχαριστίας, προλέγει τότε εἰπὼν, καὶ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ δοξάζειν ἡμᾶς. Indicat Malach. cap. i. 10, 11. bd , - . -, oer (d) Ibid. pp. 168-9. Ἐν ταύτῃ τῇ προφητείᾳ (viz. Isai. xxii. 16.) “ a , Com Ξ περὶ τοῦ ἄρτου ὃν παρέδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ ἡμέτερος Χριστὸς ποιεῖν εἰς ἀνάμνησιν -“ , 4 ‘ ’ » > 4 > a x ‘ Tov Te σωματοποιήσασθαι διὰ τοὺς πιστεύοντας εἰς Αὐτὸν, Ot ovs καὶ παθητὸς “- a a a , γέγονε" καὶ περὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου, ὃ εἰς ἀνάμνησιν τοῦ αἵματος Αὐτοῦ παρέδωκεν εὐχαριστοῦντας ποιεῖν, φαίνεται. . > a (6) Ibid. pp. 209-10, Πάντας οὖν, of διὰ τοῦ ὀνόματος τούτου θυσίας * ds , > - ε 4 , 4 ae ἃ = > , ~ παρέδωκεν “Ingots ὁ Χριστὸς γίνεσθαι, τουτέστιν ἐπὶ τῇ Evxaptotia τοῦ » a “- = a ἄρτου καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου, Tas ἐν πάντι τόπῳ τῆς γῆς γινομένας ὑπὸ τῶν ΄- ‘ e 4 - > , e 2 > ~~. ‘A ‘ Χριστιανῶν, προλαβὼν ὁ Θεὸς, μαρτυρεῖ εὐαρέστους ὑπάρχειν Αὐτῷ" τὰς δὲ ig >. € ~ ‘ > > , e ΄- - » ΄ , > , , ‘ ὑφ᾽ ὑμῶν, καὶ δι’ ἐκείνων ὑμῶν τῶν ᾿Ιερέων γινομένας ἀπαναίνεται, λέγων, Kat x , ey > , > “- - Coats , Caer ES - τὰς θυσίας ὑμῶν οὐ προσδέξομαι ἐκ τῶν χειρῶν ὑμῶν" διότι ἀπὸ ἀνατολῆς ἡλίου ἕως δυσμῶν, τὸ ὄνομά Μου δεδόξασται, λέγει, ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. ὑμεῖς δὲ βεβηλοῦτε αὐτὸ καὶ μέχρι νῦν φιλονεικοῦντες λέγετε, ὅτι τὰς μὲν ἐν « A > 4 ~ > -~ , » , > ~ ’΄ , » Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐπὶ τῶν ἐκεῖ τότε οἰκούντων Ἰσραηλιτῶν καλουμένων, θυσίας οὐ [4 e x ‘ ‘ \ ~ 2 “ “ , a ye a προσδέχεται ὁ Θεὸς, τὰς δὲ διὰ τῶν ἐν TH διασπορᾶ τότε δὴ ὄντων ἀπὸ TOU ΄ ὅς > , en + 6 8... ᾧ > ΄ \ x 5. Ὁ γένους ἐκείνου ἀνθρώπων εὐχὰς προσίεσθαι Αὐτὸν εἰρηκέναι, καὶ τὰς εὐχὰς Ἂν εἰς , ΄ σ » > x > ‘ x Ψ , ΟΣ - αὐτῶν θυσίας καλεῖν. Ὅτι μὲν οὖν καὶ εὐχαὶ, καὶ εὐχαριστίαι ὑπὸ τῶν ΜΕ , ΄ ’ " x7 , » ~ ~ , ‘4 > , ἀξίων γινόμεναι, τέλειαι μόναι, καὶ εὐάρεστοί εἰσιν τῷ Θεῷ θυσίαι, καὶ αὐτός . ΄- Ὶ , ‘ 4 ΄ - 4 >? > , φημι" ταῦτα yap μόνα καὶ Χριστιανοὶ παρέλαβον ποιεῖν, kal ἐπ᾿ ἀναμνήσει - a er a“ ie ἃ “ > a ‘ ~ ΄ ce , τῆς τροφῆς αὐτῶν, ξηρᾶς τε, καὶ ὑγρᾶς, ἐν 7 καὶ τοῦ πάθους 6 πέπονθε---- μέμνηται. S. Irenzvs floruit A.D. 167.
Ed. Paris. 1710.
beans s (a) Lib. i. cap. 13. p. 60. Ποτήρια οἴνῳ κεκραμένα προσποιούμενος
᾽ ~ ‘ > 4 ἐξ » , ‘ , ΄- > , , εὐχαριστεῖν, καὶ ἐπὶ πλέον ἐκτείνων τὸν λόγον τῆς ἐπικλήσεως, πορφύρεα
ἂν ἡ cs , nm 6 - ‘ eG” ~ δὲ Σὰ x ’ καὶ ἐρυθρὰ ἀναφαίνεσθαι ποιεῖ" ὡς δοκεῖν τὴν ἀπὸ τῶν ὑπὲρ τὰ ὅλα χάριν 5 = re - iC > a 2K , oT lo διὰ τῇ » ἰκλή > a τὸ αἷμα τὸ ἑαυτῆς στάζειν ἐν τῷ ἐκείνῳ ποτηρίῳ, διὰ τῆς ἐπικλήσεως αὐτοῦ,
@ It is evident that προυσφέροντας, or some such word, is here wanting, or else for πάντας we must read πάσας.
4 APPENDIX.
καὶ ὑπεριμείρεσθαι τοὺς παρόντας ἐξ ἐκείνου γεύσασθαι τοῦ πόματος, ἵνα kat εἰς αὐτοὺς ἐπομβρήσῃ ἡ διὰ τοῦ μάγου τούτου καλουμένη χάρις.
(0) Lib. iv. cap. 8. p. 237. Sacerdotes autem sunt omnes Domini Apostoli, qui neque agros, neque domos hereditant hic, sed semper altari et Deo serviunt, de quibus, et Moyses in Deuteronomio, in Benedictione Levi: Qui dicit patri suo, et matri sue: non novi te ; et fratres suos non agnovit.
(c) Lib. iv. cap. 17. p. 247. Quoniam autem non indigens Deus servitute eorum, sed propter ipsos quasdam observantias in Lege preceperit, plenissime Prophete indicant. Et rursus quoniam non indiget Deus oblatione hominum, sed propter ipsum qui offerat homi- nem, manifeste Dominus docuit—si quando enim negligentes eos justitiam, et abstinentes a dilectione Dei videbat, per sacrificia autem et reliquas typicas observantias putantes propitiari Deum, dicebat iis Samuel quidem sic, Non vult Deus Holocausta, &c. Then he cites Psalm xl. 1; Isaiah i. 11, 16—18, and many other places, and then proceeds, Ex quibus omnibus manifestum est, quia non sacrificia et holocaustomata queerebat ab iis Deus, sed fidem, et obedientiam, et justitiam propter illorum salutem: then he cites Hos. vi. 6, et Do- minus noster quidem eadem monebat eos, dicens, si enim cognovis- setis, quid est: Misericordiam volo, et non sacrificium; nunquam con- demnassetis innocentes. Testimonium quidem reddens (Christus) prophetis, quoniam veritatem predicabant; illos autem arguens sua culpa insipientes. Sed et suis discipulis dans consilium, primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis, non quasi indigenti, sed ut ipsi nec in- fructuosi, nec ingrati sint, eum qui ex creatura est panis, accepit, et gratias egit, dicens, Hoc est corpus meum. Et calicem similiter, qui est ex ea creatura, que est secundum nos, suum sanguinem con- fessus est, et Novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens, in universo mundo offert Deo, Ei qui alimenta nobis preestat, primitias suorum munerum in Novo Testa~ mento, de quo in duodecim Prophetis Malachias sic preesignificavit ; he cites Malachi, i. 10, 11. and adds, manifestissime significans per heec, quoniam prior quidem populus cessabit offerre Deo, omni autem loco sacrificium offeretur Ei, et hoc purum: Nomen autem ejus glori- ficatur in Gentibus.
(4) Lib. iv. cap. 17. p. 249. Quoniam ergo nomen Filii proprium Patris est, et Deo Omnipotenti per Jesum Christum offert Eccle- sia, bene ait secundum utraque, et in omni loco incensum offeretur No- mini meo. Incensum autem Joannes in Apocalypsi orationes, ait, esse Sanctorum,
(6) Lib. iv. cap. 18. p. 250. Igitur Ecclesie oblatio, quam Do- minus docuit offerri in universo mundo, purum sacrificium reputatum
APPENDIX. δ
est apud Deum, et acceptum est Ei: non quod indigeat a nobis sacri- ficium, sed quoniam is qui offert glorificatur ipse in eo quod offert, si acceptetur munus ejus. Per munus enim erga regem, et honos et affectio ostenditur: quod in omni simplicitate et innocentia Dominus volens nos offerre, preedicavit dicens, Cum igitur offers munus tuum ad altare, &c. he recites Matt. v. 23, 24. and then goes on; offerre igitur oportet Deo primitias Ejus creaturee—et non genus oblationum re- probatum est, oblationes enim et illic, oblationes autem et hic: sacri- ficia in populo, sacrificia et in ecclesia, sed species immutata est tantum, quippe cum jam non a servis, sed a filiis offerantur.—ab initio enim respexit Deus ad munera Abel, quoniam cum simplicitate et justitia offerebat; super sacrificium autem Cain non respexit, quoniam cum zelo et malitia que erat adversus fratrem divisionem habebat in corde.
(Ὁ Ibid. Igitur non sacrificia sanctificant hominem, non enim in- diget sacrificio Deus; sed conscientia ejus qui offert sanctificat sacrificium pura existens, et prestat acceptare Deum quasi ab amico —Quoniam igitur cum simplicitate offert Ecclesia, juste munus ejus purum sacrificium apud Deum deputatum est, quemadmodum et Paulus Philippensibus ait, (he cites Phil. iv. 18.) Oportet enim nos oblationem Deo facere, et in omnibus gratos inveniri fabricatori Deo, in sententia pura, et fide sine hypocrisi, in spe firma, in dilec- tione ferventi, primitias earum, que sunt Ejus, creaturarum offerentes. Hanc oblationem Ecclesia sola puram offert fabricatori, offerens Ei cum gratiarum actione ex creatura Ejus. Judzi autem jam non offerunt: manus enim eorum sanguine plene sunt: non enim rece- perunt Verbum per quod offertur Deo; sed neque omnes Hereti- corum Synagoge. Alii enim alterum preter fabricatorem dicentes Patrem, ideo que secundum nos, creature sunt, offerentes Ei, cupi- dum alieni ostendunt Eum.
Quomodo autem constabit eis, eum panem in quo gratiz acte sint corpus esse Domini sui, et calicem sanguinis Ejus, si non ipsum fabricatoris mundi Filium dicant, id est, Verbum Ejus, per quod lignum fructificat, &c.
Quomodo autem rursus dicunt carnem, &c. Gr. Πῶς τὴν σάρκα λέ- γουσιν εἰς φθορὰν χωρεῖν, καὶ μὴ μετέχειν τῆς ζωῆς, τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Κυρίου, καὶ αἵματος Αὐτοῦ τρεφομένην ; ἢ τὴν γνώμην ἀλλαξάτωσαν, ἢ τὸ προσφέρειν τὰ εἰρημένα παραιτείσθωσαν' ἡμῶν σύμφωνος ἡ γνώμη τῇ Evxapioria, καὶ ἡ Evxaptoria βεβαιοῖ τὴν γνώμην (nostram, addit Interpres) προσφέρομεν δὲ Αὐτῷ τὰ Wia—as yap ἀπὸ γῆς ἄρτος mpoo- λαμβανόμενος τὴν ἐπίκλησιν τοῦ Θεοῦ, οὐκέτι κοινὸς ἄρτος ἐστὶν, ἀλλ Εὐχαριστία ἐκ δύο πραγμάτων συνεστηκυῖα, ἐπιγείου τε, καὶ οὐρανίου"
οὕτως καὶ τὰ σώματα ἡμῶν μεταλαμβάνοντα Evyapiotias μηκέτι εἶναι
6 APPENDIX.
φθαρτὰ τὴν ἐλπίδα τῆς els αἰῶνας ἀναστάσεως €yovra.—Offerimus autem Ei, non quasi indigenti, sed gratias agentes Dominationi Ejus, et sanctificantes creaturam : quemadmodum enim Deus non indiget eorum quz a nobis sunt, sic nos indigemus offerre aliquid Deo— Sicut igitur non his indigens, attamen a nobis propter nos fieri vult, ne simus infructuosi; ita id ipsum Verbum dedit populo preceptum faciendarum oblationum, quamvis non indigeret eis, ut discerent Deo servire ; sic et ideo nos offerre vult munus ad altare frequenter, sine intermissione. Est ergo altare in ccelis (illuc enim preces nostre, et oblationes nostre diriguntur) et templum, quemadmodum Joannes in Apocalypsi ait, (he cites, Rev. xxi. 3.)
(Ὁ Lib. iv. cap. 33. p. 270. Quomodo autem juste Dominus, si alterius Patris existit, hujus conditionis, que est secundum nos, accipiens panem, suum corpus esse confitebatur, et temperamentum calicis suum sanguinem confirmavit ?
(g) Lib. v. cap. 2. Vani autem omni modo, qui-universam dispo- sitionem Dei contemnunt, et carnis salutem negant, et regenera- tionem ejus spernunt, dicentes, non eam capacem esse incorruptibili- tatis: si autem non salvetur hec, videlicet, nee Dominus sanguine suo redemit nos, neque calix Eucharistiz communicatio sanguinis Ejus est, neque panis, quem frangimus, communicatio corporis Ejus est.
Μέλη αὐτοῦ ἐσμὲν, καὶ διὰ τῆς κτίσεως τρεφόμεθα, τὴν δὲ κτίσιν ἡμῖν Αὐτὸς παρέχει---τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως ποτήριον αἷμα ἴδιον ὡμολόγησε, ἐξ οὗ τὸ ἡμέτερον δεύει αἷμα, καὶ τὸν ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως ἄρτον ἴδιον σῶμα διε- βεβαιώσατο, ap οὗ τὰ ἡμέτερα αὔξει σώματα. “Ordre οὖν καὶ τὸ κεκραμένον ποτήριον, καὶ ὁ γεγονὼς ἄρτος ἐπιδέχεται τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ γίνεται ἡ ἙΕὐχαριστία σῶμα Χριστοῦ, ἐκ τοῦτων δὲ αὔξει, καὶ συνίσταται ἡ τῆς σαρκὸς ἡμῶν ὑπόστασις" πῶς δεκτικὴν μὴ εἶναι λέγουσι τὴν σάρκα τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἥτις ἐστὶ ζωὴ αἰώνιος, τὴν ἀπὸ τοῦ σώματος καὶ αἵματος τοῦ Κυρίου τρεφομένην. καὶ μέλος Αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχουσαν. ----καὶ ὅνπερ τρόπον τὸ ξύλον τῆς ἀμπέλου κλιθὲν εἰς τὴν γῆν τῷ ἰδίῳ καιρῷ ἐκαρποφύρησε, καὶ ὁ κόκκος τοῦ σίτου πεσὼν εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ διαλυθεὶς, πολλοστὸς ἐγέρθη διὰ τοῦ Πνέυματος τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἔπειτα δὲ διὰ τῆς σοφίας τοῦ Θεοῦ εἰς χρῆσιν ἐλθόντα ἀνθρώπων, καὶ προσλαμβανόμενα τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ Εὐχαριστία γίνεται, ὅπερ ἐστὶ σῶμα καὶ αἷμα τοῦ Χριστου" οὕτως καὶ τὰ ἡμέτερα σώματα ἐξ αὐτῆς τρεφόμενα, καὶ τεθέντα εἰς τὴν γῆν, καὶ διαλυθέντα ἐν αὐτῇ ἀναστήσεται ἐν τῷ ἰδίῳ καιρῷ, τοῦ λόγου τοῦ Θεοῦ τὴν ἔγερσιν αὐτοῖς
αριζομένου εἰς δόξαν Θεοῦ καὶ Πατρός. Xap toon
APPENDIX. fi
Cremens ALEXANDRINUS floruit A.D. 192. Ed. Oxon. 1715.
(a) Pedagog. lib. i. cap. 6. p. 129. ‘O λόγος τὰ πάντα τῷ νηπίῳ, kat πατὴρ, καὶ μήτηρ, Kat παιδαγωγὸς, καὶ τροφεὺς. Φάγεσθε μοῦ, φησὶ, τὴν σάρκα, καὶ πίεσθε μοῦ τὸ αἷμα. [ἐναργὲς τῆς πίστεως, καὶ τῆς ἐπαγγε- λίας τὸ πότιμον ἀλληγορῶν Ὁ] ἀποδύσασθαι ἡμῖν τὴν παλαιὰν καὶ σαρκικὴν ἐγκελεύεται φθορὰν, ὥσπερ καὶ τὴν παλαιὰν τροφὴν καινῆς δὲ ἄλλης τοῦ Χριστοῦ διαίτης μεταλαμβάνοντας, ἐκεῖνον, εἰ δυνατὸν, ἀναλαμβάνοντας, ἐν ἑαυτοῖς ἀποτίθεσθαι, καὶ τὸν Σωτῆρα ἐνστερνίζεσθαι.
(0) Ibid. lib. ii. cap. 2. p.177. Διττὸν δὲ τὸ αἷμα τοῦ Κυρίου" τὸ μὲν γάρ ἔστιν αὐτοῦ σαρκικὸν, ᾧ τῆς φθορᾶς λελυτρώμεθα" τὸ δὲ, πνευμα- τικὸν, τοῦτεστιν ᾧ κεχρίσμεθα᾽ καὶ τοῦτεστι πιεῖν τὸ αἷμα τοῦ ᾿Ιησοῦ, τῆς κυριακῆς μεταλαμβάνειν ἀφθαρσίας" ἰσχὺς δὲ τοῦ λόγου τό πνεῦμα, ὡς αἷμα σαρκὸς" ἀναλόγως τοίνυν κίρναται ὁ μὲν οἶνος τῷ ὕδατι, τῷ δὲ ἀνθρώπῳ τὸ πνεῦμα. καὶ τὸ μὲν εἰς πίστιν (lege πόσιν) εὐωχεῖ τὸ κρᾶμα, τὸ δὲ εἰς ἀφθαρσίαν ὁδηγεῖ τὸ πνεῦμα᾽ ἡ δὲ ἀμφοῖν αὖθις κρᾶσις, ποτοῦ τε καὶ λόγου, Εὐχαριστία κέκληται, χάρις ἐπαινουμένη καὶ καλὴ" ἧς οἱ κατὰ πίστιν μεταλαμβάνοντες, ἁγιάζονται καὶ σῶμα καὶ ψυχήν.
(c) Ibid. p. 186. Εὖ γὰρ ἴστε, μετέλαβεν οἴνου καὶ Αὐτὸς (Χριστὸς )" καὶ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος καὶ Αὐτὸς καὶ εὐλόγησέν γε τὸν οἶνον, εἰπὼν, λάβετε, πίετε, τοῦτό Mov ἐστὶ τὸ αἷμα, αἷμα τῆς ἀμπέλου" τὸν λόγον τὸν περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχεόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, εὐφροσύνης ἅγιον ἀλληγορεῖ νάμα.
(4) Stromat. lib. i. p. 343. Αρτον λαβὼν (Χριστὸς) πρῶτον ἐλά- λησε, καὶ εὐχαρίστησεν᾽ εἶτα κλάσας τὸν ἄρτον προέθηκεν, ἵνα δὴ φάγωμεν λογικῶς.
(6) Lbid. lib. iv. p. 657. Μελχισεδὲκ, βασιλεὺς Σαλὴμ, ὁ ἱερεὺς τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ὑψίστου ὁ τὸν οἶνον καὶ τὸν ἄρτον, τὴν ἡγιασμένην διδοὺς τροφὴν, εἰς τύπον Εὐχαριστίας.
(Ὁ Ibid. lib. vii. p. 848. Καὶ γάρ ἐστιν ἡ θυσία τῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας, λόγος ἀπὸ τῶν ἁγίων ψυχῶν ἀναθυμιώμενος, ἐκκαλυπτομένης ἅμα τῆς θυσίας, καὶ τῆς διανοίας ἁπάσης τῷ Θεῷ.
(6) In Quis Dives salvetur, p. 956. Καὶ μέλλων σπένδεσθαι, καὶ
ἂν» ΄- λύτρον “ἙΕαυτὸν ἐπιδιδοὺς, καινὴν ἡμῖν Διαθήκην καταλιμπάνει.
TERTULLIANUS floruit A.D. 192, Ed, Paris. 1664.
(a) Apologet. cap. 39. p. 31. Modicam unusquisque stipem men- strua die, vel cum velit, et si modo velit, et si modo possit, apponit, nam nemo compellitur, sed sponte confert. Hee quasi deposita pietatis sunt.
(b) De Spectaculis, xxv. p. 83. Quale est ex ore, quo Amen in Sanctum protuleris, gladiatori testimonium reddere ?
Ὁ [The words inclosed in brackets are found in Heinsius’ edition. ]
8 APPENDIX.
(c) De Corona Militis, cap. 3. p. 102. Oblationes pro defunctis, pro natalitiis annua die facimus.
(4) De Evhortatione Castitatis, cap. 11. p. 523, Pro cujus spiritu postulas, pro qua oblationes reddis—et offeres pro duabus? et com- mendabis illas duas per sacerdotem ?
(e) De Cultu Feminarum, lib. ii. cap. 11. p. 159. Vobis autem (mulieribus) nulla procedendi causa non tetrica; aut imbecillus aliqui e fratribus visitandus; aut sacrificium offertur, aut Dei sermo admi- nistratur.
(f) De velandis Virginibus, cap. 9. p. 178. Non permittitur mu- lieri in Ecclesia loqui, sed nec docere, nec tinguere, nec offerre, neque ullius virilis muneris, nedum sacerdotalis officii sortem 5101 vindicare.
(g) De Oratione, cap. 6. p. 131. Quam eleganter divina sapientia ordinem orationis instruxit, ut post ccelestia, id est, post Dei nomen, Dei voluntatem, et Dei regnum, terrenis quoque necessitatibus peti- tioni locum faceret >—Quanquam panem nostrum quotidianum da nobis hodie, spiritaliter potius intelligamus. Christus enim panis noster est—tum quod et corpus Ejus in pane censetur, hoc est corpus meum. Itaque petendo panem quotidianum, perpetuitatem postulamus in Christo, et individuitatem a corpore Ejus.
(h) Lbid. cap. 10. p. 183. Ne prius ascendamus ad Dei altare, quam si quid discordiz vel offense cum fratribus contraxerimus, resol- vamus.
(i) Zbid. cap. 14. p. 135. Stationum diebus, non putant plerique sacrificiorum orationibus interveniendum, quod statio solvenda sit accepto corpore Domini: ergo devotum Deo obsequium Enucharistia resolvit ? an magis Deo obligat? Nonne solennior erit statio tua, si ad aram Dei steteris? Accepto corpore Domini, et reservato, utrum- que salvum est, et participatio sacrificil, et executio officil.
(k) De Patientia, cap. 12. p. 147. Nemo convulsus animum in fratrem suum, munus apud altare perficiet, nisi prius reconciliando fratri reversus ad patientiam fuerit.
(1) Adversus Judeos, cap. 5. p. 187. Sacrificia terrenarum obla- tionum, et spiritualium sacrificiorum preedicta ostendimus. Et qui- dem a primordio majoris filu, id est Israel, terrena fuisse in Cain preeostensa sacrificia: et minoris filii Abel, id est, populi nostri, sacri- ficia diversa monstrata; namque major natu Cain de fructu terre obtulit munera Deo; minor vero filius Abel de fructu ovium suarum. Respexit Deus in Abel et in munera ejus; in Cain autem et in mu- nera ejus non respexit.—Ex hoc igitur duplicia duorum populorum sacrificia preeostensa jam tunc a primordio animadvertimus.
(m) De Resurrectione Carnis, cap. 8. p. 330. Caro abluitur, ut anima emaculetur; caro ungitur, ut anima consecretur; caro signa-
APPENDIX. 9
tur, ut et anima muniatur; caro manus impositione adumbratur, ut et anima spiritu illuminetur; caro corpore et sanguine Christi ves- citur, ut et anima de Deo saginetur, Non possunt ergo separari in mercede, quas opera conjungit.
(n) Adversus Marcion. lib. i. cap. 14. p. 372. Usque nunc nec aquam reprobavit Creatoris, qua suos abluit; nec oleum, quo suos ungit; nec mellis et lactis societatem, qua suos infantat; nec panem, quo ipsum corpus suum representat; etiam in sacramentis propriis egens mendicitatibus Creatoris.
(0) Ibid. lib. iv. c. 40. p. 457-8. Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis, corpus illum suum fecit, hoc est, Corpus Meum dicendo, id est, figura Corporis Mei.
(p) Ibid. He cites Genesis xlix. 11. Lavabit in vino stolam suam —ita et nunc sanguinem suum in vino consecravit, qui tunc vinum in sanguine figuravit. ᾿ς (4) Ad Scapulam, cap. 2. p. 69. Sacrificamus pro salute impera- toris sed Deo nostro et ipsius, sed quo modo precepit Deus, pura prece. Non enim eget Deus, conditor universitatis, odoris aut sanguinis alicujus.
(r) De Prescriptione, cap. 40. p. 216. Qui (diabolus) ipsas quo- que res sacramentorum divinorum, idolorum mysteriis <emulatur. Tinguit et ipse quosdam, utique credentes, et fideles suos: exposi- tionem peccatorum de lavacro repromittit ; et si adhuc memini, Mi- thra signat illic in fronte milites suos; celebrat et panis oblationem.
Ammonius ALEXANDRINUS floruit A.D. 220. Apud Catenam PP, Grecorum, Ed. Corderio, p. 89, in Joan, iii. 5.
(a) Τὸ αἰσθητὸν ὕδωρ πρὸς θεῖαν ἀναστοιχειοῦται δύναμιν, καὶ ἁγιάζει τοὺς ἐν οἷς ἄν γένηται᾽ τὸ ὕδωρ ἐπινοίᾳ μόνον διαφορὰν ἔχει πρὸς τὸ Πνεῦμα, ἐπεὶ ταῦτόν ἐστι τῇ ἐνεργεῖᾳ.
(Ὁ) In Catena in Joan. vi. 64. p. 200. Πνεῦμα ὧδε καλεῖ τὴν σάρκα
΄ὔ ~ ~ , πεπληρωμένην τῆς ζωοποιοῦ Πνεύματος ἐνεργείας. ᾿ ae
Oricenzs floruit A.D. 230. Ed. Paris. 1733. (a) Contra Celsum, lib. viii. cap. 33. tom. i. p. 766. Κέλσος μὲν,
~ 4 te -~ , ὡς ἀγνοῶν Θεὸν, τὰ χαριστήρια Δαίμοσιν ἀποδιδότω" ἡμεῖς δὲ, τῷ τοῦ πάν- a“ > Led x ‘ > > , ‘ > ΄- _ a" - as καὶ εὐχῆς ἐπὶ τοῖς τος Δημιουργῷ εὐχαριστοῦντες, καὶ τοὺς μετ᾽ εὐχαριστίας xi ae ~ , δοθεῖσι mpocayopévous ἄρτους ἐσθίομεν, σῶμα γενομένους διὰ τὴν εὔχην “ , ΄ ? x ἅγιόν τι, καὶ ἁγιάζον τοὺς μεθ᾽ ὑγιοῦς προθέσεως αὔτῳ χρωμένους. ᾿Αλλὰ , ε - ‘ bed > , δὲ ἀπαρχὰς Κέλσος μὲν Δαιμονίοις ἀνατιθέναι βούλεται" npets δὲ τῷ εἰπόντι, a δ' = ‘ > , βλαστησάτω ἡ γῆ (he cites Gen. i. 11.) ὯΩι δὲ τὰς ἀπαρχὰς ἀποδίδομεν, b
10 APPENDIX.
Τούτῳ kal τὰς εὐχὰς ἀναπέμπομεν ἔχοντες ᾿Αρχιερέα μέγαν----καὶ κρατοῦμεν τῆς ὁμολογίας, ἕως ἂν ζώμεν.
(aa) In Exod. Homil. 13. tom. ii. p. 176. Cum suscipitis corpus Domini, cum omni cautela et veneratione servatis, ne ex eo parum quid decidat, ne consecrati muneris aliquid dilabatur.
(Ὁ) In Leviticum Homil. 13. tom. ii. p. 255. Sed si referantur hee ad mysterii magnitudinem, invenies commemorationem istam habere ingentis repropitiationis effectum. Si redeas ad illum panem, qui de ceelo descendit, et dat huic mundo vitam; illum panem propositionis, quem proposuit Deus propitiationem per fidem in sanguine Ejus; et si respicias ad illam commemorationem, de qua dicit Dominus, Hoc Sacite in meam commemorationem ; invenies quod ista est commemoratio sola, qu propitium facit hominibus Deum.
(c) In Numeros, Homil. 7. tom. ii. p. 290. Antea in znigmate fuit Baptismus in nube, et in mari, nunc autem in specie regeneratio est in aqua, et in Spiritu Sancto: tunc in enigmate erat Manna cibus ; nunc autem in specie caro Verbi Dei est verus cibus, sicut et Ipse dixit, quia Caro mea est vere cibus, et sanguis meus vere est potus.
(d) Zé¢d. Homil. 11. tom. ii. p. 303. Deo offerri dicit quod sacer- dotibus datur. Et hoc est quod docemur ex lege, quia nemo licite nec legitime utatur fructibus quos terra produxit—nisi ex singulis quibusque Deo primitiz, id est, sacerdotibus offerantur; hance ergo legem observari etiam secundum literam, sicut et alia nonnulla, necessarium puto.
(6) Ibid. p. 305. Decet, et utile est etiam sacerdotibus Evangelii offerri primitias: ita enim et Dominus disposuit, ut qui Evangelium annunciant de Evangelio vivant, et qui altari deserviunt, de altari participent. Et sicut hoc dignum et decens est, sic e contrario et indecens et indignum existimo et impium, ut is qui Deum colit, et ingreditur Ecclesiam Dei, qui scit sacerdotes et ministros adsistere altari—de fructibus terre quos dat Deus, non offerat primitias sacer- dotibus.
(f) In Mattheum, tom. iii. p. 498. Οὐ τὸ εἰσερχόμενον εἰς τὸ στόμα ἁγιάζει τὸν ἄνθρωπον, κἂν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀκεραιοτέρων νομίζηται ἁγιάζειν ὁ ὀνομ- αζόμενος ἄρτος τοῦ Κυρίου.
Ῥ. 499. Τὸ ἁγιαζόμενον βρῶμα κατὰ τὴν ἐπιγενομένην αὐτῷ εὐχὴν αὐτῷ, κατὰ τὴν ἀναλογίαν τῆς πίστεως, ὠφέλιμον γίνεται, καὶ τῆς τοῦ νοῦ αἴτιον διαλάμψεως--καὶ οὐχ ἡ ὕλη τοῦ ἄρτου, ἀλλ᾽ ὁ ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ εἰρημένος λόγος ἐστὶν ὁ ὠφελῶν τὸν μὴ ἀναξίως τοῦ Κυρίου ἐσθίοντα αὐτόν.
(6) Apud Bulenger. contra Casaubon. Diatribe iii. p. 177. Ed. Lugdun. 1617. Καὶ γὰρ ὁ τοῦ ἄρτου μετέχων, τοῦ Σώματος τοῦ Κυρίου
, 5 ms = 9)? μεταλαμβάνει" οὐ yap προσέχομεν TH φύσει τῶν αἰσθητῶν προκειμένων, ἀλλ
APPENDIX. 11
»» ut ‘ AY , IES) X ~ , - . > A > -
ἀνάγομεν τὴν ψυχὴν διὰ πίστεως ἐπὶ TO τοῦ Λόγου Σῶμα" ov γὰρ εἶπε, τοῦτο Ζ “ “- “ “ -
ἐστι σύμβολον, ἀλλὰ τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ Σῶμα" δεικτικῶς, ἵνα μὴ νομίσῃ τὶς τύπον
> ‘A , είναι Ta φαινόμενα.
5. Cyprianus floruit A.D. 248.
Ed. Paris. 1726.
(a) Testimoniorum adversus Jud@os, lib. i. cap. 16. p. 280. Quod sacrificium yetus evacuaretur, et novum celebraretur [legitur] apud Malachiam, Non est mihi voluntas circa vos, &c.
(Ὁ) De Unitate Ecclesia, p. 196. In domo una comedetur, non eji- cietis de domo carnem foras. Caro Christi, et sanctum Domini ejici foras non potest, nec alia ulla credentibus preter unam Kcclesiam domus est.
(c) Ibid. p. 198. Ad sacrificium cum dissensione venientem revocat [Christus] ab altari, et jubet prius concordare cum fratre, tunc cum pace redeuntem Deo munus offerre.—Quam sibi igitur pacem pro- mittunt inimici fratrum se credunt, que sacrificia celebrare emuli sacerdotum ? An secum esse Christum, cum collecti fuerint, opinantur, qui extra Christi ecclesiam colliguntur ?
(4) Ibid. p. 200. Hostis altaris, adversus sacrificium Christi rebellis—contemptis episcopis, et Dei sacerdotibus derelictis, consti- tuere audet aliud altare, precem alteram illicitis vocibus facere, Dominice hostie veritatem per falsa sacrificia profanare.
(e) De Lapsis, p. 186. A diaboli aris revertentes ad sanctum Domini sordidis et infectis nidore manibus accedunt. Mortiferos idolorum cibos adhuc pene ructantes, exhalantibus etiam nunc scelus suum faucibus et contagia funesta redolentibus, Domini corpus inva- dunt. (He cites Levit. vi. 20; xxii. ὃ. 1 Cor. x. 21; xi. 27.) Spretis his omnibus atque contemptis; ante expiata delicta, ante exomologesin factam criminis, ante purgatam conscientiam sacrificio et manu sacerdotis, ante offensam placatam indignantis Domini et minantis, vis infertur corpori Ejus et sanguini, atque plus modo in Dominum manibus atque ore delinquunt, quam cum Dominum nega- verunt: pacem putant esse, quam quidam verbis fallacibus venditant.
(Ὁ Ibid. p. 189. Et quidem alius, quia et ipse maculatus sacrificio a sacerdote celebrato partem cum ceteris ausus est latenter accipere, sanctum Domini edere et contrectare non potuit: cinerem ferre se, apertis manibus, invenit. Documento unius ostensum est Dominum recedere cum negatur, nec immerentibus ad salutem prodesse quod sumitur, quando gratia salutaris in cinerem, sanctitate fugiente, mu- tatur.
(g) De Oratione Dominica, p. 209. Panem nostrum quotidianum da
1 APPENDIX.
nobis hodie. Quod potest et spiritaliter et simpliciter intelligi—nam panis vitee Christus est; et panis hic omnium non est, sed noster est ; et quo modo dicimus Pater noster, quia intelligentium et credentium Pater est, sic et panem nostrum vocamus, quia Christus eorum, qui corpus Ejus contingunt, panis est. Hunc autem panem dari nobis quotidie postulamus, ne qui in Christo sumus, et Eucharistiam quotidie ad cibum salutis accipimus, intercedente aliquo graviore delicto, dum abstenti et non communicantes a ccelesti pane prohibemur, a Christi corpore separemur, Ipso predicante et monente, Ego sum panis vite, &c., siquis ederit de meo pane, &c. Panis autem quem Ego dedero caro mea est pro seculi vita. Quando ergo dicit, ix eternum vivere siquis ederit de Ejus pane, ut manifestum est eos vivere, qui corpus Ejus attingunt et Eucharistiam jure communicationis accipiunt ; ita contra timendum est, et orandum, ne dum quis abstentus separatur a Christi corpore, procul remaneat a salute, comminante Ipso, et dicente; mist ederitis carnem Filii Hominis, &c. et ideo panem nostrum, id est, Christum, dari nobis quotidie petimus, ut qui in Christo manemus, et vivimus, a sanctificatione Ejus et corpore non recedamus: potest vero et sic intelligi, ut cibum nobis tantum petamus, et victum.
(h) De Opere et Eleemosynis, Ὁ. 242. Locuples et dives es, et Dominicum celebrare te credis, quee corban omnino non respicis, que in Dominicum sine sacrificio venis, que partem de sacrificio quod pauper obtulit, sumis ἢ
(i) Epistola \xvi. p. 114. Singuli divino sacerdotio honorati et in clerico ministerio constituti non nisi altari et sacrificiis deservire, et precibus atque orationibus vacare debent. (et pag. provima.) Epi- scopi antecessores nostri (hoc) salubriter providentes censuerunt, ne quis frater excedens ad tutelam vel curam clericum nominaret, ac siquis hoc fecisset, non offerretur pro eo, nec sacrificium pro dormi- tione ejus celebraretur.
(kk) Epist, Ibid. p. 114. Neque enim apud altare Dei meretur nominari in sacerdotum prece, qui ab altari sacerdotes et ministros voluit avocare.
(k) Epist. iv. p. 9.—ita ut presbyteri quoque, qui illic apud con- fessores offerunt, singuli cum singulis diaconis per vices alternent ; quia et personarum mutatio, et vicissitudo convenientium minuit in- vidiam.
(1) Epist. liv. p. 78. Episcopatus nostri honor grandis et gloria est, pacem dedisse martyribus, ut sacerdotes, qui sacrificia Dei quotidie celebramus, hostias Deo et victimas preeparemus.—ut quos excitamus, et hortamur ad preelium, non inermes et nudos relinquamus, sed pro- tectione corporis et sanguinis Christi muniamus; et cum ad hoc fiat Kucharistia, ut possit accipientibus esse tutela—nam quomodo doce-
APPENDIX. 13
mus aut provocamus eos in confessione Nominis sanguinem suum fundere, si eis militaturis Christi sanguinem denegamus ?
(m) £pist. lx. p. 104. Quidam vel ignoranter vel simpliciter in calice Dominico sanctificando et plebi ministrando non hoc faciunt, quod Jesus Christus Dominus et Deus noster sacrificii hujus auctor et doctor fecit et docuit.—Quando aliquid, Deo inspirante et man- dante precipitur, necesse est Domino servus fidelis obtemperet. Admonitos autem nos scias, ut in calice offerendo Dominica traditio servetur, neque aliud fiat a nobis, quam quod pro nobis Dominus prior fecerit, ut calix, qui in commemoratione Ejus offertur, mixtus vino offeratur.—Nec potest videri sanguis Ejus, quo redempti et vivificati sumus, esse in calice, quando vinum desit calici.—In sacer- dote Melchisedec sacrificii Dominici sacramentum prefiguratum videmus, secundum quod Scriptura divina testatur et dicit; et Mel- chisedec rex Salem protulit panem et vinum, fuit autem sacerdos Dei summi, et benedixit Abraham; quod autem Melchisedec typum Christi portaret, declarat in Psalmis Spiritus Sanctus, ex persona Patris ad Filium dicens, Tu es sacerdos in eternum secundum ordinem Melchisedec. Qui ordo utique hic est de sacrificio illo veniens et inde descendens, quod Melchisedec sacerdos Dei summi fuit, quod panem et vinum obtulit, quod Abraham benedixit. Nam quis magis sacerdos Dei summi, quam Dominus noster Jesus Christus, qui sacri- ficium Deo Patri obtulit, et obtulit hoc idem quod Melchisedec obtulerat, id est, panem et vinum, suum scilicet corpus et sanguinem ? et circa Abraham benedictio illa preecedens ad nostrum populum per- tinebat.— Ut ergo in Genesi per Melchisedec sacerdotem benedictio circa Abraham posset rite celebrari, precedit ante imago sacrificii Christi, in pane et vino scilicet constituta; quam rem perficiens et adimplens Dominus, panem et calicem mixtum vino obtulit, et Qui est plenitudo veritatis veritatem prefigurate imaginis adimplevit. Sed et per Salomonem Spritus Sanctus typum Dominici sacrificii ante preemonstrat immolate hostiz panis et vini, sed et altaris, et aposto- lorum faciens mentionem: Sapientia, inquit, edificavit sibi domum, (he cites the five first verses of the ninth chapter of Proverbs.) Vinum miztum declarat, id est, calicem Domini aqua et vino mixtum prophetica voce prenuntiat, ut appareat in passione Dominica id esse gestum, quod fuerat ante preedictum.—ZJn the next page he cites the words of the institution of the Eucharist, and adds, Unde apparet sanguinem Christi non offerri, si desit vinum calici, nec sacrificium dominicum legitima sanctificatione celebrari, nisi oblatio et sacrifi- cium nostrum respondeat passioni. Quomodo autem de creatura vitis novum vinum cum Christo in regno Patris bibemus, si in sacrificio Dei Patris et Christi vinum non offerimus ?—Cujus rei sacramentum
14 APPENDIX.
nec in Psalmis tacet Spiritus Sanctus faciens mentionem Dominici calicis, et dicens, calir tuus inebrians, perquam optimus: calix autem qui inebriat vino utique mixtus est—addidit perguam optimus, quod scilicet calix Dominicus sic bibentes inebriat, ut sobrios faciat, ut mentes ad spiritalem sapientiam redigat—ut mestum pectus, ac triste, quod prius peccatis augentibus premebatur, divine indulgen- tize leetitia resolvatur ; quod tunc demum potest letificare in ecclesia Domini bibentem, si quod bibitur Dominicam teneat veritatem.— Videmus in aqua populum intelligi, in vino vero ostendi sanguinem Christi; quando autem in calice vino aqua miscetur, Christo populus adunatur.—Sic autem in sanctificando calice Domini offerri aqua sola~ non potest, quomodo nec vinum solum potest. Nam si vinum tan- tum quis offerat, sanguis Christi incipit esse sine nobis ; si vero aqua sit sola, plebs incipit esse sine Christo.—Si in sacrificio qued Christus obtulit, non nisi Christus sequendus est, utique id nos obaudire et facere oportet, quod Christus fecit, et quod faciendum esse mandavit : —quod si nec minima de mandatis Dominicis licet solvere, quanto magis tam magna, tam grandia, tam ad ipsum Dominice passionis et nostre redemptionis sacramentum pertinentia fas non est infrin- gere, aut in aliud quam quod divinitus institutum sit, humana tradi- tione mutare. Nam si Jesus Christus Dominus et Deus noster Ipse est summus sacerdos Dei Patris, et sacrificium Patri Seipsum primus obtulit, et hoc fieri in sui commemorationem precepit, utique ille sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur, qui id quod Christus fecit, imita- tur ; et sacrificium verum et plenum tunc offert in ecclesia Deo Patri, Si sic incipiat offerre, secundum quod Jpsum Christum videat obtu- lisse. Czterum omnis religionis et veritatis disciplina subvertitur, nisi id quod spiritaliter precipitur fideliter reservetur, nisi si in sacri- ficiis matutinis hoc quis veretur, ne per saporem vini redoleat sangui- nem Christi. Sic ergo incipit et a passione Christi in persecutionibus fraternitas retardari, dum in oblationibus discit de sanguine Ejus et cruore confundi.—At enim non mane sed post ccenam, mixtum calicem obtulit Dominus. Numquid ergo Dominicum post ccenam celebrare debemus, ut sic mixtum calicem frequentandis Dominicis offeramus ? Christum offerre oportebat circa vesperam diei, ut hora “ ipsa sacrificii ostenderet occasum, et vesperam mundi, sicut in Exodo scriptum est, (he cites Exod. xii. 6.) Nos autem resurrectionem Domini mane celebramus ; et quia passionis Ejus mentionem in sacri- ficlis omnibus facimus (passio est enim Domini sacrificium quod offerimus) nihil aliud quam quod 1116 fecit, facere debemus, (he cites 1 Cor. xi. 26.) Quotiescunque ergo calicem in commemorationem Domini et passionis Ejus offerimus, id quod constat Dominum fecisse faciamus.—Nobis vero non poterit ignosci, qui nunc a Domino ad-
APPENDIX. 15
moniti et instructi sumus, ut calicem Dominicum vino mixtum, secundum quod Dominus obtulit, offeramus.—Religioni igitur nostre congruit, et timori, et ipsi loco, atque officio sacerdotii nostri—in Dominico calice miscendo et offerendo custodire traditionis Dominic veritatem.
(n) £pist. Ixviii. p.115. A concilio plurimorum sacerdotum qui presentes eramus sententiam retulerit (legatus) non posse a quoquam nostrim 5101 communicari qui, episcopo Cornelio in Catholica Ecclesia de Dei judicio, et cleri ac plebis suffragio ordinato, profanum altare erigere, et.adulteram cathedram collocare, et sacrilega contra verum sacerdotem sacrificia offerre tentaverit.
(0) Epist. lxxiii. p. 130. Quid ergo—quia Novatianus altare col- locare, et sacrificia offerre contra fas nititur, ab altari et sacrificiis cessare nos oportet, ne paria et similia cum illo celebrare videamur ? vanum prorsus, et stultum est, ut quia Novatianus extra Ecclesiam vindicat sibi veritatis imaginem, relinquamus Ecclesie veritatem.
Maengs floruit A.D. 350. Apud Bibliothecam Vett. PP. Ed. Galland. tom. ili. p. 541.
Adversus Theosthenem, οὐκ ἐστὶν Evxapiotia τύπος τοῦ σώματος καὶ - “ a , ΙΗ ΄ 4 ‘ “- “- ‘4 TOU αἵματος, ὥσπερ τίνες ἐῤῥαψώδησαν πεπηρωμένοι τὸν νοῦν, μᾶλλον δὲ
- = σῶμα kai αἷμα.
Evsesius CasariEnsis floruit A.D. 315. Ed. Zimmerman, 1822.
(a) Histor. Eccl. lib. vi. cap. 43. p. 471. Ποιήσας yap tas προσ- φορὰς, καὶ διανέμων ἑκάστῳ τὸ μέρος---ἀντὶ τοῦ εἰπεῖν λαμβάνοντα τὸν ἄρτον ἐκεῖνον τὸ ᾿Αμὴν, οὐκέτι ἀνήξω πρὸς Κορνήλιον λέγει.
(Ὁ) De Laudibus Constantini, p. 1221, ᾿Αναίμους δὲ καὶ λογικὰς θυσίας τὰς δι᾿ εὐχῶν καὶ ἀποῤῥήτου θεολογίας τοῖς αὐτοῦ θιασώταις, τὶς ἐπιτελεῖν παρέδωκεν ἄλλος, ἢ μόνος ὁ ἡμέτερος Σωτὴρ; διὸ ἐπὶ τῆς καθ᾽ ὅλης ἀνθρώπων οἰκουμένης, θυσιαστήρια συνέστη, ᾿Ἐκκλησιῶν τε ἀφιερώματα, νοερῶν τε καὶ λογικῶν θυσιῶν ἱεροπρεπεῖς λειτουργίαι.
(c) De vita Constantini, lib. iv. cap. 45. p. 1022. Οἱ δὲ μὴ διὰ τούτων χωρεῖν οἷοί Te, θυσίαις ἀναίμοις καὶ μυστικαῖς ἱερουργίαις τὸ θεῖον ἱλάσκοντο, ὑπὲρ τῆς κοινῆς εἰρήνης, ὑπὲρ τῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας τοῦ Θεοῦ, αὐτοῦ δὲ βασιλέως, παιδῶν τ᾽ αὐτοῦ θεοφιλῶν, ἰκετηρίους εὐχὰς τῷ Θεῷ, προσ- αναφέροντες.
(4) Demonstratio Evangelica, lib. i. cap. 6. Ed. Paris. p. 20. Μετατιθεμένου δὲ tod θυσιαστηρίου mapa τὰ TH Μωῦσεϊ δοκοῦντα, ἀνάγκη πᾶσα καὶ τοῦ Μωῦσέως νόμου μεταβολὴν γενέσθαι----ἑνὶ δὲ τῷ μόνῳ Κυρίῳ θυσιαστήριον ἀναίμων καὶ λογικῶν θυσιῶν, κατὰ τὰ καινὰ μυστήρια τῆς νεᾶς
καὶ καινῆς Διαθήκης, καθ᾽ ὅλης τῶν ἀνθρώπων οἰκουμένης ἀνεγηγέρθαι.
16 APPENDIX.
(e) Ibid. cap. 10. p. 37. Εἰκότως τὴν τοῦ σώματος Αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τὴν ὑπόμνησιν ὁσημέραι ἐπιτελοῦντες, καὶ τῆς κρείττονος ἢ κατὰ A ‘4 , ‘ c , > ’ a , a ε 4 τοὺς παλαιοὺς, θυσίας τε καὶ ἱερουργίας ἠξιωμένοι, οὐκέτι ὅσιον ἡγούμεθα καταπίπτειν ἐπὶ τὰ πρῶτα καὶ ἀσθενῆ στοιχεῖα, σύμβολα καὶ εἰκόνας, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ αὐτὴν ἀλήθειαν περιέχοντα. He cites Psalm xxxix. (nobis xl.) ver. 7, 8, 9. and goes on; Mera δὴ πάντα οἷον τι θαυμάσιον θῦμα, καὶ , > , « κ᾿ ΄ εν ὡς a ε΄. ἢ «κα ἥν» σφαγίον ἐξαίρετον τῷ Πατρὶ καλλιερησάμενος, ὑπὲρ τῶν ἁπάντων ἡμῶν ἀνή- veyke σωτηρίας, μνήμην καὶ ἡμῖν παραδοὺς, ἀντὶ θυσίας. (f) Ibid. In the next page he adds, τούτου δῆτα τοῦ θύματος τὴν μνήμην ἐπὶ τραπέζης ἐκτελεῖν διὰ συμβόλων, Tod τε σώματος Αὐτοῦ, καὶ τοῦ ΄ at e σωτηρίου αἵματος, κατὰ θεσμοὺς τῆς καινῆς Διαθήκης παρειληφότες, πάλιν ὑπὸ τοῦ προφήτου Δαβὶδ παιδεύομεθα λέγειν, ‘Hroipacas ἐνώπιόν Mov τρά- πεζαν, ἐλίπανας ἐν ἐλαίῳ τὴν κεφαλήν Mov" διαῤῥήδην γοῦν ἐν τούτοις καὶ τὸ μυστικὸν σημαίνεται χρίσμα, καὶ τὰ σεμνὰ τῆς Χριστοῦ τραπέζης θύματα, δ ὧν καλλιεροῦντες, τὰς ἀναίμους καὶ λογικὰς Αὐτῷ τε προσηνεῖς θυσίας διὰ παντὸς βίου τῷ ἐπὶ πάντων προσφέρειν Θεῷ, διὰ τοῦ πάντων ἀνωτάτου ᾿Αρχιερέως Αὐτοῦ δεδιδάγμεθα. 5) Ibid. After citing Malach. i. 10, 11. p. 40. Θύομεν δῆτα τοιγα- = Soe , ~ 6 , 2s. . ’ .» 6 ‘ , ‘ ροῦν τῷ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεῷ θυσίαν αἰνέσεως" θύομεν τὸ ἔνθεον καὶ σέμνον καὶ « ‘ - ΄ - A A A , ‘A A ἱεροπρεπὲς θῦμα, θύομεν καινῶς, κατὰ τὴν καινὴν Διαθήκην, τὴν καθαρὰν θυσίαν, he cites Psalm 1. (nobis li. ver. 17.) and proceeds thus: καὶ δὴ A “ A ] , > , ’ , > = καὶ θυμιῶμεν τὸ προφητικὸν θυμίαμα, ἐν πάντι τόπῳ προσκομίζοντες Αὐτῷ A .7 A a ΄ , . ΄- A > ‘A > -~ > τὸν εὐώδη καρπὸν THs παναρέτου θεολογίας, διὰ τῶν πρὸς Αὐτὸν εὐχῶν ἀνα- φέροντες" --οὐκοῦν καὶ θύομεν, καὶ θυμιῶμεν᾽ τότε μὲν τὴν μνήμην τοῦ , s \ \ A > a ΄ , > μεγάλου θύματος, κατὰ τὰ πρὸς Αὐτοῦ παραδοθέντα μυστήρια ἐπιτε- λοῦντες, καὶ τὴν ὑπὲρ σωτηρίας ἡμῶν ἙΕὐχαριστίαν δι’ εὐσεβῶν ὕμνων τε, καὶ εὐχῶν τῷ Θεῷ προσκομίζοντες" τότε δὲ σφᾶς αὐτοὺς ὅλως καθιε- ροῦντες Αὐτῷ, καὶ τῷ γε ᾿Αρχιερεῖ Αὐτοῦ Λόγῳ, αὐτῷ σώματι καὶ ψυχῇ ἀνακείμενοι.
(h) Jbid. lib. v. cap. 8. p. 223. Ὃ Σωτὴρ ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς, 6 Χριστὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ, τῷ τοῦ Μελχισεδὲκ τρόπῳ, τὰ τῆς ἐν ἀνθρώποις ἱερουργίας εἰσέτι καὶ - Η͂ - 5 - a > σι εἰ x . OA ε " an νῦν διὰ τῶν Αὐτοῦ θεραπευτῶν ἐπιτελεῖ ὥσπερ yap ἐκεῖνος ἱερεὺς ἐθνῶν τυγχάνων, οὐδαμοῦ φαίνεται θυσίαις σωματικαῖς κεχρημένος, οἰνῷ δὲ μόνῳ καὶ ἄρτῳ τὸν ᾿Αβραὰμ εὐλογῶν᾽ τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον πρῶτος μὲν Αὐτὸς ὁ Σωτὴρ καὶ Κύριος ἡμῶν, ἔπειτα οἱ ἐξ Αὐτοῦ πάντες ἱερεῖς ἀνὰ πάντα τὰ 26 ‘ ‘ > ON - A ‘ > ‘ é : ἔθνη τὴν πνευματικὴν ἐπιτελοῦντες κατὰ τοὺς ᾿Εκκλησιαστικοὺς θεσμοὺς ἱερουργίαν, οἰνῷ καὶ ἄρτῳ, τοῦ τε σώματος Αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ σωτηρίου αἵματος
2} A , a ‘ “ , , αἰνίττονται τὰ μυστήρια, τοῦ Μελχισεδὲκ ταῦτα πνεύματι θείῳ προτεθεωρη- κότος, καὶ τῶν μελλόντων ταῖς εἰκόσι προκεχρημένου.
(i) Ibid. lib. viii. in Genes. xlix. 12. p- 380. Kai τὸ, λευκοὶ οἱ ὁδόντες αὐτοῦ ἢ γάλα, TO λαμπρὸν καὶ κάθαρον τῆς μυστηριώδους τροφῆς [δοκεῖ μοι σημαίνειν") αὐτὸς γὰρ τὰ σύμβολα τῆς ἐνθέου οἰκονομίας τοῖς
c - ΄“- - »“" Avrov παρεδίδου μαθηταῖς, τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος ποιεῖσθαι παρακε-
APPENDIX. 17
» arn ys \ \ te! \ > 4. ιὦὉ , Or x x “" .“ λεύομενος" ἐπειδὴ γὰρ οὐκέτι τὰς St αἱμάτων θυσίας, οὐδὲ τὰς παρὰ Μωῦσεῖϊ 3 , , - »ὄ , ἊΨ ‘ , ἐν διαφόρων ζώων σφαγαῖς νενομοθετημένας προσίετο, ἄρτῳ δὲ χρήσθαι συμ- βόλῳ τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος παρεδίδου, εἰκότως τὸ λαμπρὸν καὶ καθαρὸν ἠνίξατο
t μ ρ ’ 5 μ ρ ρ 7] τῆς τροφῆς, εἰπὼν, καὶ λευκοὶ of ὁδόντες αὐτοῦ ἢ γάλα. Τούτου καὶ ἄλλος ἐμνημόνευσε ἹΠροφήτης, φήσας, θυσίαν καὶ προσφορὰν οὐκ ἠθέλησας, σῶμα δὲ κατηρτίσω μοι.
(k) In Psalm xci. p. 608. Ed. Μοπίξαυοομ, 1707. ᾿Αλλὰ καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως προσφέρομεν, THY σωτήριον μνήμην ἀναζωπυροῦντες, τό τε τοῦ ῥαντισμοῦ αἷμα τοῦ ᾿Αμνοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, τοῦ περιελόντος τὴν ἁμαρτίαν
τοῦ κόσμου, καθάρσιον τῶν ἡμετέρων ψυχῶν. S. ΑΤηάνβιῦβ floruit A.D. 326. Ed. Paris. 1698.
(a) Epist. iv. ad Serapionem, tom. i. par. ii. p. 710. ᾿Αμφότερα περὶ "Ἑαυτοῦ εἴρηκε, σάρκα καὶ πνεῦμα" καὶ TO πνεῦμα, πρὸς TO κατὰ σάρκα διέστειλεν, ἵνα μὴ μόνον τὸ φαινόμενον, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ ἀορατὸν αὐτοῦ πιστεύ- σαντες μάθωσιν, ὅτι καὶ ἃ λέγει, οὐκ ἐστὶν σαρκικὰ, ἀλλὰ πνευματικὰ" πόσοις γὰρ ἤρκει τὸ σῶμα πρὸς βρῶσιν, ἵνα καὶ τοῦ κόσμου παντὸς τοῦτο τροφὴ γένηται, ἀλλὰ διὰ τοῦτο τῆς εἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀναβάσεως ἐμνημόνευσε τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ἵνα τῆς σωματικῆς ἐννοίας αὐτοὺς ἀφελκύσῃ, καὶ λοιπὸν τὴν εἰρη- μένην σάρκα βρῶσιν ἄνωθεν οὐράνιον καὶ πνευματικὴν τροφὴν παρ᾽ Αὐτοῦ διδομένην μάθωσιν" ἃ γὰρ λελάληκα, φησὶν, ὑμῖν, πνεῦμά ἐστι, καὶ ζωή" ἶσον τῷ εἰπεῖν, τὸ μὲν δεικνύμενον καὶ διδόμενον ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου σωτηρίας δοθήσεται τροφὴ, ὥστε πνευματικῶς ἐν ἑκάστῳ ταύτην ἀναδίδοσθαι καὶ γίνεσθαι πᾶσι φυλακτήριον εἰς ἀνάστασιν ζωῆς αἰωνίου.
(0) De Incarnatione, tom. i. par. ii. p. 883. ᾿Αλλαχοῦ τὸ ἽΑγιον Πνεῦμα καλεῖ ἄρτον οὐράνιον, Aéywv" τὸν ἄρτον ἡμῶν τὸν ἐπιούσιον δὸς ἡμῖν σήμερον᾽ ἐδίδαξε γὰρ ἡμᾶς ἐν τῇ εὐχῇ ἐν τῷ νῦν αἰῶνι αἰτεῖν τὸν ἐπιούσιον ἄρτον, τουτέστι, τὸν μέλλοντα, οὗ ἀπαρχὴν ἔχομεν ἐν τῇ νῦν ζωῇ, τῆς σαρκὸς τοῦ Κυρίου μεταλαμβάνοντες, καθὼς Αὐτὸς εἶπε᾽ ὁ ἄρτος δὲ ὃν ᾿Εγὼ δώσω ἣ σάρξ μου ἐστὶν ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς" πνεῦμα γὰρ ζωοποιοῦν ἡ σάρξ ἐστι τοῦ Κυρίου, διότι ἐκ ΠΙνεύματος τοῦ ζωοποιοῦ συνελήφθη" τὸ γὰρ γεγεν- νημένον ἐκ τοῦ Πνεύματος πνεῦμά ἐστι.
(c) Historia de Melchisedec, tom. ii. p. 241. Καὶ οὕτως (Μελχισε- δὲκ) πρῶτος τύπος ἐγένετο, τῆς ἀναίμακτου θυσίας τοῦ Σωτῆρος φέρων εἴς τὴν ἁγίαν προσφοράν. διὸ eyes’ σὺ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα κατὰ τάξιν Μελ- χισεδέκ᾽ ἐπειδὴ τύπος ἐγένετο τῆς ἁγίας προσφορᾶς.
(4) Ex opere Athanasii quodam deperdito fragmentum apud Theodo- ritum Dialog. 2. p. 92. vol. iv. Edit. Lutetia, 1642. Τὸ σῶμα τοίνυν ἐστὶν, ᾧ λέγει, κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν pod. οὗ καὶ γέγονεν ἔχθρος ὁ Διάβολος σὺν ταῖς πονηραῖς δυνάμεσι, καὶ ᾿Ιουδαῖοι, καὶ Ἕλληνες" δι᾽ οὗ σώματος ᾿Αρχιερεὺς καὶ ᾿Απόστολος γέγονε, καὶ ἐχρημάτισε" δι’ οὗ παρέδωκεν ἡμῖν μυστηρίου, λέγων, τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν, καὶ, τὸ αἷμα τῆς καινῆς Δια-
c
18 APPENDIX.
, > ΄“ ΄“΄ A « ‘ ς ~~ > , . , ‘ Ψ, ~ θήκης, ov τῆς παλαιᾶς, TO ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν ἐκχυνόμενον᾽ θεότης δὲ οὔτε σῶμα
ἔχει, οὔτε αἷμα ἔχει. Jutius ΕἸκμιουβ floruit A.D. 340.
De Errore profanarum Religionum in Bibliotheca PP. Edit. anno 1718, tom. iv. p. 114. Alius est cibus, qui languentes relevat, errantes revocat, lapsos erigit, qui morientibus «ternz immortalitatis largitur insignia. Christi panem, Christi poculum quere, ut terrena fragilitate contempta, substantia hominis immortali pabulo saginetur. Quis est autem hic panis, vel quod poculum? De quo in libris Salo- monis sapientia preclamat; ait enim, venite, &c. (ut Prov. ix. 1—5.) Melchisedec rex Salem, et sacerdos summi Dei, revertenti Abrahz cum pane et vino benedictionis obtulit gratiam.—ut autem manifestius diceretur quinam ille esset panis, per quem miserze mortis vincuntur exitia, Ipse Dominus sancto ac venerando ore signavit, ne per diversos tractatus spes hominum pravis interpretationibus fallerentur. Dicit enim in Evangelio Joannis, Ego sum panis vite ; qui venerit ad Me non esuriet, et qui in Me crediderit non sitiet unquam. Item in sequentibus hoc idem simili modo significat ; ait enim, siquis sitit, veniat, et bibat, qui credit in Me. Et rursus Ipse, ut majestatis suee substantiam cre- dentibus traderet, ait, Nisi ederitis carnem Filii Hominis, &c., quare nihil vobis cum tympanis, cibo odii, miseri mortales; salutaris cibi gratiam querite, et immortale poculum bibite.
Cyritius Hirrosotymitanus floruit A.D. 350. Edit. Paris. 1720. (a) Catechism. Mystagog.i. p. 808. Ὥσπερ ὁ ἄρτος, καὶ ὁ οἶνος τῆς
> , ‘ “ 6} > , - co , » > Εὐχαριστίας, πρὸ τῆς ἁγίας ἐπικλήσεως τῆς προσκυνητῆς Τριάδος, ἄρτος ἦν, ‘ oan Cee ee ΄ sy ΄ Ἔ δι Ὁ , “- ~ καὶ οἶνος λιτὸς" ἐπικλήσεως δὲ γινομένης, 6 μὲν ἄρτος γίνεται σῶμα Χριστοῦ, ὁ δὲ οἶνος αἷμα Χριστοῦ" τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ τρόπον, τὰ τοιαῦτα βρώματα τῆς πομπῆς τοῦ Σατανᾶ, τῇ ἰδίᾳ φύσει λιτὰ ὄντα, τῇ ἐπικλήσει τῶν Δαιμόνων ’΄ , βέβηλα γίνεται. ; (aa) Catech. Mystag. iii. p. 817. ‘O ἄρτος τῆς Εὐχαριστίας, μετὰ τὴν » , - «ς ΄“- “-“ ἐπίκλησιν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος, οὐκ ἔτι ἄρτος λιτὸς, ἀλλὰ σῶμα Χριστοῦ. (Ὁ) Catech. Mystag. iv. p. 820, Adrod οὖν ἀποφηναμένου, καὶ εἰπόντος ᾿ -“ la ”~ ~ περὶ τοῦ ἄρτου, Τοῦτό pov ἐστὶ τὸ σῶμα᾽ τὶς τολμήσει ἀμφιβάλλειν λοιπὸν, \ > a a ems καὶ Αὐτοῦ βεβαιωσαμένου καὶ εἰρηκότος, Τοῦτό μου ἐστὶ τὸ αἷμα᾽ τὶς ἐνδοιάσει ΄ ,΄ = a το > πότε, λέγων μὴ εἶναι Αὐτοῦ τὸ αἷμα ; τὸ ὕδωρ ποτὲ εἰς οἶνον μεταβέβληκεν, 5 cal o “ a οἰκεῖον αἵματι, ev Kava τῆς Γαλιλαίας" καὶ οὐκ ἀξιόπιστός ἐστιν, οἶνον μετα- ‘ > e ΄ ΄- - a a »" βαλὼν εἰς αἷμα ;----καὶ τοῖς υἱοῖς τοῦ νυμφῶνος οὐ πολλῷ μᾶλλον τὴν ἀπό- λαυσιν τοῦ σώματος Αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος, δωρησάμενος ὁμολογηθήσεται. (0) Ibid. et eadem pagina. Μετὰ πάσης πληρυφορίας, ὡς σώματος καὶ
»" αἰματὸς μεταλαμβάνωμεν Χριστοῦ" ἐν τύπῳ γὰρ ἄρτου, δίδοται σοι τὸ σῶμα"
APPENDIX. 19
» 3 U w ΄ x a a ΄ ΄ ΜΝ , καὶ ἐν τύπῳ οἴνου, δίδοται σοι τὸ αἷμα, ἵνα γένῃ---σύσσωμος καὶ σύναιμος Αὐτοῦ.
(d) Ibid.—oré Χριστὸς τοῖς ᾿Ιουδαίοις διαλεγόμενος, ἔλεγεν, Ἐὰν μὴ φαγητὲ Μοῦ τὴν σάρκα, k.7.d. (as John vi. 53.) ἐκεῖνοι μὴ ἀκηκοότες πνευ- ΄ ΄ , , > a rc ‘ > , , ματικῶς τῶν λεγομένων, σκανδαλισθέντες ἀπῆλθον εἰς τὰ ὀπίσω, νομίζοντες
a τ , > A , Ce ἌΣ ΩΝ “ ΄ ” ὅτι ἐπὶ σαρκοφαγίαν αὐτοὺς προτρέπεται" ἦσαν δὲ ἐν παλαιᾷ διαθήκῃ ἄρτοι ΄ ΄ , ΄ προθέσεως" ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνοι παλαῖας ὄντες διαθήκης, τελὸς εἰλήφασιν. ἐν δὲ τῇ ~ , a“ καινῇ διαθήκῃ, ἄρτος οὐράνιος καὶ ποτήριον σωτηρίου, ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα δ Ξ ἁγιάζοντα. ὥσπερ γὰρ ὁ ἄρτος σώματι κατάλληλος, οὕτω καὶ ὁ Λόγος τῇ ον τ , A 4 > ε “ -Φ Ψ Ν “ a” = μὲ ‘ ψυχῇ ἁρμόδιος. μὴ προσέχε οὖν ὡς ψιλοῖς τῷ ἄρτῳ καὶ τῷ Olv@"’ σῶμα yap +. Ὅ “- \ \ \ , > , > x ae καὶ αἷμα Χριστοῦ, κατὰ τὴν Δεσποτικὴν τυγχάνει ἀπόφασιν. εἰ yap καὶ ἡ a >» © , τ a αἴσθησίς σοι τοῦτο ὑποβάλλει, GAN ἡ πίστις σε βεβαιούτω᾽ μὴ ἀπὸ τῆς ΄ ᾿ Η͂ aA > τὰ ee a , rs , γεύσεως κρίνῃς τὸ πρᾶγμα, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ τῆς πίστεως πληροφοροῦ ἀνενδοιάστως, , ‘ a ~ ’ σώματος καὶ αἵματος Χριστοῦ καταξιωθείς. (6) Ibid. pag. proxima. ‘O Σολομὼν ταύτην αἰνιττόμενος τὴν χάριν, ἐν σ΄ 3 , = , . = , > > τῷ ᾿Εκκλησιάστῃ (he means Eccl. ix. 7.) Neyer” Δεῦρο, φάγε ἐν εὐφρο- a > σύνῃ τὸν ἄρτον σοῦ, τὸν πνευματικὸν, --καὶ πίε TOY οἶνον σου, τὸν πνευμα- ἊΝ τικὸν οἶνον. (f) Catechism. Mystag.v.p. 327. Παρακαλοῦμεν τὸν φιλάνθρωπον Θεὸν, ν ὦ a > - 35-8 ‘ , e @& , A ν Ε τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα ἐξαποστεῖλαι ἐπὶ τὰ προκείμενα᾽ ἵνα ποιήσῃ τὸν μὲν ἄρτον - a " ν “Ὁ 1 a , ‘ 2 5. > , x σῶμα Χριστοῦ, τὸν δὲ οἶνον αἷμα Χριστοῦ. πάντως yap οὗ ἐὰν ἐφάψαιτο τὸ “ a “ cr 4p. ΕἾ ΄ > A ἘΠ 59. “ Αγιον Πνεῦμα, τοῦτο ἡγίασται καὶ μεταβέβληται. εἶτα, μετὰ τὸ ἀπαρτισθῆναι τὴν πνευματικὴν θυσίαν, τὴν ἀναίμακτον λατρείαν, ἐπὶ τῆς θυσίας ἐκείνης τοῦ ἱλασμοῦ παρακαλοῦμεν τὸν Θεὸν, ὑπὲρ κοινῆς τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν εἰρήνης" ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου εὐσταθείας" ὑπὲρ βασιλέων ὑπὲρ στρατιωτῶν καὶ συμμά- χων ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐν ἀσθενείαις" ὑπὲρ τῶν καταπονουμένων" καὶ ἁπαξαπλῶς, « ‘4 , , ΄ , , Φ ΄- A , , ὑπὲρ πάντων βοηθείας δεομένων δεόμεθα πάντες ἡμεῖς, καὶ ταύτην προσφέ- τ δ , “- , - popev τὴν θυσίαν. Eira μνημονεύομεν καὶ τῶν προκεκοιμημένων, πρῶτον im a ᾿ , ἘΣ oe - - πατριαρχῶν, προφητῶν, ἀποστόλων, μαρτύρων᾽ ὅπως 6 Θεὸς ταῖς εὐχαῖς αὐτῶν καὶ πρευβείαις προσδέξηται ἡμῶν τὴν δέησιν. εἶται καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν προκεκοιμημένων ἁγίων πατέρων, καὶ ἐπισκόπων, καὶ πάντων ἁπλῶς τῶν ΄ , ΄σ rn ἐν ἡμῖν προκεκοιμημένων᾽ μεγίστην ὄνησιν πιστεύοντες ἔσεσθαι ταῖς ψυχαῖς, [4 A Φ ε ΄, > , ~ c , ‘ , , ὑπὲρ ὧν ἡ δέησις ἀναφέρεται, τῆς ἁγίας καὶ φρικωδεστάτης προκειμένης θυσίας. (6) Ibid. Χριστὸν ἐσφαγιασμένον, ὑπὲρ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἁμαρτημάτων προσφέρομεν, ἐξιλεούμενοι ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν τε καὶ ἡμῶν τὸν φιλάνθρωπον Θεόν. (h) Jbid. Panem supersubstantialem in Oratione Dominica de pane ee B Eucharistica interpretans, p. 329. Αρτος otros ὁ κοινὸς οὐκ ἐστὶν > , » ‘ aes | ΠΥ. > Ld , > . ΓΟ ΞΟ ε« > > > ἐπιούσιος. ἄρτος δὲ οὑτὸς ὁ ἅγιος ἐπιούσιός ἐστιν" ---οὑτὸς ὁ ἄρτος οὐκ εἰς κοιλίαν χωρεῖ καὶ εἰς ἀφεδρῶνα ἐκβάλλεται" ἀλλ᾽ εἰς πᾶσαν σοῦ τὴν σύστα- σιν ἀναδίδοται, εἰς ὠφέλειαν σώματος καὶ ψυχῆς. (i) Ibid. p. 331. Τὴν ἀριστερὰν θρόνον ποιήσας τῇ δεξιᾷ, ὡς μελλούσῃ
Βασιλέα ὑποδέχεσθαι, καὶ κοιλάνας τὴν παλάμην, δέχου τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Χρι-
20 APPENDIX.
~ > , x > , 3 , A ~ ’ ᾿ ᾿ στοῦ, ἐπιλέγων τὸ, ᾿Αμήν. εἶτα προσέρχου καὶ τῷ ποτηρίῳ---κύπτων, καὶ
΄ ΄ ν ΄ λ ΄ κ᾿ Ε] ᾿ τρόπῳ προσκυνήσεως καὶ σεβάσματος λέγων τὸ, ᾿Αμήῆν.
Hivarivus Picraviensis floruit A.D. 354. Ed. Paris. 1693.
(a) De Trinitate, lib. viii. p. 954. Si enim vere Verbum caro factum est, et nos vere Verbum carnem cibo Dominico sumimus; quomodo non naturaliter in nobis manere existimandus est, qui et naturam car- nis nostre jam inseparabilem sibi homo natus assumpsit, et naturam carnis suze ad naturam eternitatis sub sacramento nobis communi- cande carnis admiscuit?—Si vere igitur carnem corporis nostri Christus assumpsit, et vere homo ille, quia ex Maria natus fuit, Christus est, nosque vere sub mysterio carnem corporis sui sumi- mus; (et per hoc unum erimus, quia Pater in Eo est, et Ile in nobis)—Ipse enim ait, Caro mea vere est esca, et sanguis meus vere est potus. Qui edit carnem meam, et bibit sanguinem meum, in Me manet, et Ego in eo.—Nunc enim et ipsius Domini professione, et fide nostra vere caro est, et vere sanguis est: et hec accepta atque hausta id efficiunt, ut et nos in Christo, et Christus in nobis sit.—quam autem in Eo per sacramentum communicate carnis et sanguinis simus, Ipse testatur dicens, et hic mundus jam Me non videt ; vos autem Me videbitis, &c.—Hee ergo vite nostre causa est, quod in nobis carnalibus ma- nentem per carnem Christum habemus:—si ergo nos naturaliter secundum carnem per Eum vivimus, id est, naturam carnis sue adepti, quomodo non naturaliter secundum Spiritum in Se Patrem habeat, cum vivat Ipse per Patrem?
(0) Commentar. in Matth. cap. 31. p. 743. Qui autem, ut a se transeat rogat ὃ Numquid possibile erat non pati Christum? atquin jam a constitutione mundi sacramentum hoc in Eo erat nostrz salutis ostensum : numquid pati Ipse nolebat ὃ atquin superius fundendum in remissionem peccatorum corporis sui sanguinem consecraverat.
Hivarivus Diaconus floruit A.D. 354.
Inter opera S. Ambrosii. Ed. Paris, 1690-1.
(a) In 1 Epistol. ad Corinth. cap. xi. p. 149. Quia enim morte Domini liberati sumus, hujus rei memores, in edendo et potando car- nem et sanguinem, quz pro nobis oblata sunt, significamus.
(Ὁ) In primam Epistolam ad Timoth. cap. iv. p. 298. Prophetia est, qua eligitur quasi doctor futurus idoneus: manus vero imposi- tiones verba sunt mystica, quibus confirmatur ad hoc opus elec- tus, accipiens auctoritatem, teste conscientia sua; ut audeat vice Domini sacrificium Deo offerre.
APPENDIX. a
S. Grecorivus Nazianzenvs floruit A.D. 370. Ed. Paris. 1778. (a) Orat. 2. Apolog. p. 56. Εἰδὼς, ὅτι μηδεὶς ἄξιος τοῦ μεγάλου
καὶ Θεοῦ καὶ θύματος καὶ ᾿Αρχιερέως, ὅστις μὴ πρότερον ἑαυτὸν παρέστησε τῷ Θεῷ θυσίαν ζῶσαν, ἁγίαν, μηδὲ τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν εὐάρεστον ἐπεδεί- ξατο, μηδὲ ἔθυσε τῷ Θεῷ θυσίαν ἀινέσεως καὶ πνεῦμα συντετριμμένον, ἥν μόνην Ὁ πάντα δοὺς ἀπαιτεῖ παρ᾽ ἡμῶν θυσίαν, πῶς ἔμελλον θαῤῥῆσαι προσ- φέρειν Αὐτῷ τὴν ἔξωθεν τὴν τῶν μεγάλων μυστηρίων ἀντίτυπον᾽ ἢ πῶς ἱερέως σχῆμα καὶ ὄνομα ὑποδύεσθαι.
(0) Orat. 4. que est στηλιτευτικὴ in Julianum i. p. 101. Καὶ τὰς χεῖρας ἀφαγνίζεται τῆς ἀναιμάκτου θυσίας ἀποκαθαίρων, δὶ ἧς ἡμεῖς Χριστῷ κοινωνοῦμεν, καὶ τῶν παθημάτων καὶ τῆς Θεότητος ἐντόμοις δὲ καὶ θυσίαις, καθιστᾶ τὰ Βασίλεια.
(c) Orat. 5. que est in Julianum, ii. p. 166. Οὐκ ἔτι τοῖς ἱεροῖς οἴκοις ἡμῶν πονηρὸν ἐμβλέψουσιν᾽ οὐκ ἔτι μιανοῦσιν αἵματι μιαρῷ τὰ τῆς καθαρωτάτης καὶ ἀναιμάκτου θυσίας ἐπώνυμα θυσιαστήρια.
(4) Orat. Funebris in Basilium Magnum, 43. p. 805. Θυσιαστη- play κατορχούμενοι, καὶ τὰς ἀναιμάκτους θυσίας ἀνθρώπων καὶ θυσιῶν αἵμασι χραίνοντες (᾿Αριανοὶ.)
(6) Orat. 26. contra Mazimum, p. 483. Θυσιαστηρίων εἴρξουσιν ; ἀλλ᾽ οἶδα καὶ ἄλλο θυσιαστήριον, ἐφ᾽ ὃ λαξευτήριον οὐκ ἀναβέβηκεν οὐδὲ χεὶρ, οὐδὲ ἠκούσθη σίδηρος, ἤ τι τῶν τεχνιτῶν καὶ ποικίλων, ἀλλ᾽ ὅλον τοῦ νοῦ τὸ ἔργον, καὶ διὰ θεωρίας ἡ ἀνάβασις. τούτῳ παραστήσομαι, τούτῳ θύσω δεκτὰ, θυσίαν καὶ προσφορὰν καὶ ὁλοκαυτώματα κρείττονα τῶν νῦν προσαγομένων, ὅσῳ κρείττον σκιᾶς ἡ ἀλήθεια" περὶ οὗ μοι δοκεῖ καὶ Δαβὶδ 6 μέγας φιλοσοφεῖν, λέγων᾽ καὶ εἰσελεύσομαι πρὸς τὸ θυσιαστήριον κ. τ. 2.
(f) Orat. 45. que est in Pascha, 238 p. 863. Μεταληψόμεθα δὲ τοῦ Πάσχα, viv μὲν τυπικῶς ἔτι, καὶ εἰ TOU παλαιοῦ γυμνότερον᾽ TO yap νομικὸν Πάσχα, τολμῶ καὶ λέγω, τύπου τύπος ἦν ἀμυδρότερος.
(g) Carmen Iambic. 34. tom. ii. p. 622. Θεῷ δὲ δῶρον, θυσίαι καθάρσιοι, Δώρων δοχεῖον ἁγνὸν, ἡ θεηδόχος Τράπεΐς ---.
(h) Εἰς ᾿Επισκόπους. Tom. ii. Ρ. 824. ἮὮ θυσίας πέμποντες ἀναιμάκ- τους; ᾿Ιερῆες.
Epipnanivs floruit A.D. 368. (a) Advers. Heres. 55. Num. iil. p. 470. Edit. Parisiis, 1622.
΄- » > Μετατιθεμένης δὲ εἰς τὴν πρὸ τοῦ Λευΐ καὶ πρὸ "Aapwy κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Med- ᾿ -~ ς , A “ ᾿ > ~ » , , bit χισεδὲκ τῆς ἱερωσύνης" ὅπερ νυνὶ ev τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ πολιτεύεται, ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ καὶ δεῦρο, μηκέτι τοῦ σπέρματος κατὰ διαδοχὴν ἐκλεγομένου, ἀλλὰ ΄ , τοῦ κατὰ ἀρετὴν τύπου ζητουμένου.
(b) Ibid. Numb. 6, p. 472. ‘O Μελχισεδὲκ αὐτῷ (᾿Αβραὰμ) ἀπήντα
22 APPENDIX.
j i ἐξέβαλεν αὐτῷ ἄ καὶ οἶνον, προτυπῶν τῶν Μυστηρίων τὰ αἰνίγ- τότε, καὶ ἐξέβαλεν αὐτῷ ἄρτον καὶ οἶνον, πρ np aiviy > , aA , c ~ ΄ - . > oe ε»᾿ c a ‘ pata, ἀντίτυπα Tod Κυρίου ἡμῶν, λέγοντος" ὅτι ᾿Εγώ εἴμι ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ζῶν. καὶ ἀντίτυπα τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἐκ τῆς πλευρᾶς Αὐτοῦ νυχθέντος, καὶ ῥεύσαντος , - « ΜΝ ΄- c Ὁ εἰς κάθαρσιν τῶν κεκοινωμένων, καὶ ῥαντισμὸν, καὶ σωτηρίαν τῶν ἡμετέρων ψυχῶν. ΄ a (c) Anchorat. 57. p. 60. ‘Opapmev yap ὅτι ἔλαβεν ὁ Σωτὴρ εἰς τὰς Ὁ a » - τ ΄ - , χεῖρας Αὐτοῦ, ws ἔχει ἐν τῷ EvayyeXio, ὅτι ἀνέστη ἐν τῷ δείπνῳ, καὶ ἔλαβε ΄ Ὕ > 2 3 ne, > \ , wae oe a > ed τάδε, καὶ εὐχαριστήσας εἶπε, Τοῦτό pou ἐστὶ τόδε, καὶ ὁρῶμεν ὅτι οὐκ ἶσόν » » ‘ a > - > , > ’ > “-“ » , , . ~ ἐστιν, οὐδὲ ὅμοιον, οὐ TH ἐνσάρκῳ εἰκόνι, οὐ τῇ ἀοράτῳ Θεότητι, οὐ τοῖς χαρακτῆρσι τῶν μελῶν τὸ μὲν γάρ ἐστι στρογγυλοειδὲς καὶ ἀναίσθητον, ὡς ἊΝ ‘ ΄ 4. 3.24» ΄ Sees we > \ , \ Or πρὸς τὴν δύναμιν. kat ἠθέλησεν χάριτι εἰπεῖν, Τοῦτό μου ἐστὶ τόδε, καὶ οὐδεὶς > - - , ε ν" \ , a 4. τ ς > x © > > , ἀπιστεῖ τῷ λόγῳ. ὁ yap μὴ πιστεύων εἶναι Αὐτὸν ἀληθινὸν, ὡς εἶπεν, ἐκπίπ- a -~ a > , , TEL τῆς χάριτος, καὶ τῆς σωτηρίας. ὅ τι δὲ ἠκούσαμεν, πιστεύομεν OTL ἐστιν Αὐτοῦ. (4) Anacephaleosis, p. 154. ᾿ἰἸἰσχυροποιουμένων τῆς δυνάμεως τοῦ Ε Wy “ -~ ὁ Ψ ’ Seu > od eo , “ 2 ‘ ἄρτου, καὶ τῆς τοῦ ὕδατος ἰσχύος" ἵνα οὐκ ἄρτος ἡμῖν γένηται δύναμις, ἀλλὰ δύναμις ἄρτου" καὶ βρῶσις μὲν ὁ ἄρτος, ἡ δὲ δύναμις ἐν αὐτῷ εἰς ζωογόν- js ρ P μ βτος, ἢ μ αὐτῷ els yo
now,
Opratus Mitevitanus floruit A.D. 368.
Ed. Paris. 1679.
(a) Advers. Parmenianum, lib. vi. p. 111. Quid enim est tam sacrilegum, quam altaria Dei (in quibus aliquando et vos obtulistis) frangere, radere, removere? in quibus vota populi, et membra Christi portata sunt; quo Deus Omnipotens invocatus sit; quo postulatus descendit Spiritus Sanctus; unde a multis pignus salutis zterne, et tutela fidei, et spes resurrectionis accepta est.
(aa) Ibid. p. 112. Cur vota et desideria hominum cum ipsis alta- ribus evertistis ? Ilac ad aures Dei ascendere populi solebat oratio. Cur concidistis precibus viam? et ne ad Deum supplicatio de more solito ascensum haberet, impia manu quodammodo scalas subducere laborastis ?
(b) Ibid. p. 111. Altaria, inquam, in quibus fraternitatis munera non jussit Salvator poni, nisi que essent de pace condita. Depone, inquit, munus tuum ante altare, &c. (ut in Matth. v. 23.) ut possit pro te sacerdos offerre.
(c) Lbid. p. 111. Quid est enim altare, nisi sedes et corporis et sanguinis Christi? Quid vos offenderat Christus, cujus illic per certa momenta corpus et sanguis habitabat? Quid vos offendistis etiam vos ipsi, ut illa altaria frangeretis, in quibus ante nos per longa tem- poris spatia sancte (ut arbitramini) obtulistis? (p. 118.) Hoe tamen
APPENDIX. 23
immane facinus geminatum est, dum fregistis etiam calices, sanguinis Christi portatores.
5. Basitius Maenus floruit A.D. 370.
Edit. Paris. 1721. (a) De Baptismo, lib. ii. q. 2. tom. il. p. 653. ῳὋὉ δὲ Κύριος déyor"
, act aA @ , ε “ ao a > , , > ε a μείζων τοῦ ἱεροῦ ὧδε, παιδεύει ἡμᾶς, ὅτι τοσοῦτον ἀσεβέστερός ἐστιν ὁ τολμῶν > a “ ¢ ta A - a , “ , c \ c ‘ [ev μολυσμῶ. ψυχῆς] ἱερατεύειν τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Κυρίου τοῦ δόντος 'Εαυτὸν ὑπὲρ ς “ ‘ ‘ , = ~ a \ “ a - « - ἡμῶν προσφορὰν καὶ θυσίαν τῷ Θεῷ, ὅσον τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Μονογενοῦς Ὑἱιοῦ
τοῦ Θεοῦ ὑπερέχει κριῶν καὶ ταύρων. (Ὁ) Ibid. q. 3. pag. proxima. Ὅσῳ γὰρ πλεῖον τοῦ ἱεροῦ ὧδε κατὰ τὴν a , \ », n τοῦ Κυρίου φωνὴν, τοσούτῳ δεινότερον καὶ φοβερώτερον τὸ ἐν μολυσμῷ ψυχῆς τολμῆσαι ἅψασθαι τοῦ σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, παρὰ τὸ ἅψασθαι κριῶν ἢ ταύρων. (ὁ) Epistola 93. tom. iil. p. 186. Τὸ κοινωνεῖν κάθ᾽ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν, ν , NIN , Ae a a ‘ Ἢ καὶ μεταλαμβάνειν τοῦ ἁγίου σώματος καὶ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, καλὸν καὶ ἐπωφελὲς" Αὐτοῦ σαφῶς λέγοντος, Ὃ τρώγων μου τὴν σάρκα, καὶ πίνων μου . hod » A 7 is , \ > , ef \ , a” - τὸ αἷμα, ἔχει ζωὴν αἰώνιον" τίς γὰρ ἀμφιβάλλει, ὅτι τὸ μετέχειν συνεχῶς τῆς ζωῆς, οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἐστὶν ἢ ζῆν πολλαχῶς ; (4) Ibid. pag. proxima. Ἔν ᾿Αλεξανδρείᾳ δὲ, καὶ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ, ἕκαστος A cal , 3 -~ , c Sy A -~ »Ἅ ΄ > = wt καὶ τῶν ἐν λαῷ τελούντων, ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πλεῖστον, ἔχει κοινωνίαν ἐν TO οἴκῳ αὐτοῦ" ἅπαξ γὰρ τὴν θυσίαν τοῦ ἱερέως τελειώσαντος καὶ δεδωκότος, ὁ λα- x > A c o c ΄- > :e , , ‘A “-“ , βὼν αὐτὴν ὡς ὅλην ὁμοῦ, καθ᾽ ἑκάστην μεταλαμβάνων, παρὰ τοῦ δεδωκότος εἰκότως μεταλαμβάνειν καὶ ὑποδέχεσθαι πιστεύειν ὀφείλει. (e) De Spiritu Sancto, cap. 27. tom. il. p. 55. Τὰ τῆς ἐπικλήσεως ἘΠΕ δ... Ὁ, kod > , ~ tl > , Ἀ - , - ῥήματα ἐπὶ τῇ ἀναδείξει τοῦ ἄρτου τῆς Evxaptotias καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου τῆς > , when & - c fr > , Cte ΄ὕ » A ‘ , εὐλογίας, Tis τῶν ἁγίων ἐγγράφως ἡμῖν καταλέλοιπεν ; οὐ γὰρ δὴ τούτοις ἀρκούμεθα, ὧν ὁ ᾿Απόστολος ἢ τὸ Ἐὐῤαγγέλιον ἐπεμνήσθη, ἀλλὰ καὶ προλέ- γομεν καὶ ἐπιλέγομεν ἕτερα, ὡς μεγάλην ἔχοντα πρὸς τὸ μυστήριον τὴν ἰσχὺν,
ἐκ τῆς ἀγράφου διδασκαλίας παραλαβόντες.
Grecorius Nyssenus floruit A.D. 370.
Ed. Paris. 1638. (a) Oratio Magna Catechetica, cap. 37. tom. il. p. 102. ᾿Επειδὴ
διπλοῦν τὸ ἀνθρώπινον, ψυχῇ τε Kal σώματι συγκεκραμένον, ἀνάγκη TO πρὸς ‘ \ ΄ 3. 5 , - ΄ 4... Ε > a « τὴν ζωὴν καθηγουμένῳ, δι᾿ ἀμφοτέρων, τοῖς σωζομένοις ἐφέπεσθαι" οὐκοῦν ἡ ‘ » > % , ‘ cee ἢ > 6 “ ‘ > x > 06. “ ψυχὴ μὲν διὰ πίστεως πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀνακραθεῖσα τὰς ἀφορμὰς ἐντεῦθεν τῆς σωτηρίας ἔχει᾽----τὸ δὲ σῶμα ἕτερον τρόπον ἐν μετουσίᾳ τε καὶ ἀνακράσει τοῦ ΄ col , Σώζοντος γίνεται.--ἀναγκαῖον---ὡὼς ἂν ἐν ἡμῖν γινόμενον ἀλεξιτήριον τὴν ᾿ ΄ .- - a ᾿ , προεντεθεῖσαν τῷ σώματι τοῦ δηλητηρίου βλάβην διὰ τῆς οἰκείας ἀντιπαθείας
- “ Δ “ a a a , ἀπώσοιτο. τὶ οὖν ἐστι τοῦτο; οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἢ exeivo τὸ Σῶμα, ὃ τοῦ τε θανά-
24 APPENDIX.
, > , ay a” Lod c ~ , 6, , x A του κρείττον ἐδείχθη, καὶ τῆς ζωῆς ἡμῶν κατήρξατο. καθάπερ yap μικρὰ ζυμὴ, καθὼς φησὶν ὁ ᾿Απόστολυς, ὅλον τὸ φύραμα πρὸς ἑαυτὴν συνεξομοιοῖ,
“ Η͂ , lke ΡΥ a an > AG ΄ , 3 οὕτως τὸ θανατίσθεν ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ σῶμα ἐν τῷ ἡμετέρῳ γινόμενον, ὅλον πρὸς ἑαυτὸ μεταποιεῖ καὶ μετατίθησι.---᾿Αλλὰ μὲν οὐκ ἔστιν ἄλλως ἐντός τι γίγνεσθαι τοῦ σώματος, μὴ διὰ βρώσεως καὶ πόσεως τοῖς σπλάγχνοις κατα-
“ - , μιγνύμενον᾽ οὐκοῦν ἐπαναγκὲς κατὰ τὸν δυνατὸν τῇ φύσει τρόπον τὴν ζωο- ποιὸν δύναμιν τοῦ Πνεύματος δέξασθαι μόνον δὲ τοῦ Θεοδόχου σώματος , - , ΄“΄ ἐκείνου ταύτην δεξαμένου τὴν χάριν,----σκοπῆσαι προσήκει, πῶς ἐγένετο δυνα- ΄ ~ ΄- ~ “- “ ‘ τὸν τὸ ἕν ἐκεῖνο σῶμα ταῖς τοσαύταις TOY πιστῶν μυριάσι κατὰ πᾶσαν THY
> ΔῈ τ ‘ , [τὸ > is , ὃ A a , , 6, οἰκουμένην εἰσαεὶ καταμεριζόμενον, ὅλον ἐν ἑκάστῳ διὰ τοῦ μέρους γενέσθαι, καὶ αὐτὸ μένειν ἐφ᾽ ἑαυτοῦ ὅλον. In order to solve this difficulty, he discourses at large of bread and wine by digestion turned into human flesh ; and that our Saviour’s body, while on earth, was nourished in this manner; and then he adds, ὥσπερ τοίνυν ἐφ᾽ ἡμῶν, 6 τὸν ἄρτον δον» , A ᾿ τὶ , 7 -~ a , ΄ » oO} , ἰδὼν, τρόπον τινὰ τὸ ἀνθρώπινον βλέπει σῶμα, ὅτι ἐν τούτῳ ἐκεῖνο γινόμε-
a r e “ > - A , ~ x A ay νον, τοῦτο γίνεται" οὕτω κἀκεῖ TO Θεοδύχον σῶμα THY τροφὴν ἄρτου παραδε-
, , ‘ easy | > > ΄ \ \ ~ a 3 ΄ a a
ξάμενον, λόγῳ τινὶ ταὐτὸν ἦν ἐκείνῳ----τὸ δὲ σῶμα τῇ ἐνοικήσει τοῦ Θεοῦ “ - 3 - - -
Λόγου πρὸς τὴν Θεϊκὴν ἀξίαν μετεποιήθη. καλῶς οὖν καὶ νῦν τὸν τῷ λόγῳ τοῦ
“ες , oy] . a a a ΄ a ,
Θεοῦ ἁγιαζόμενον ἄρτον εἰς σῶμα τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγου μεταποιεῖσθαι πιστεύομαι. ye ‘ > - A ~ ed a , > 3 Ul ‘ ~ > , - Καὶ γὰρ ἐκεῖνο τὸ σῶμα ἄρτος τῆ δυνάμει ἦν, ἡγιάσθη δὲ τῇ ἐπισκηνώσει τοῦ “ ΄- “a > ”~ ig
Λόγου τοῦ σκηνώσαντος ἐν τῇ σαρκὶ---καὶ νῦν τὸ ἴσον γίνεται. *Exet γὰρ ἡ
αὐ - a 2 a ify ae 3 τοῦ Λόγου χάρις ἅγιον ἐποιεῖτο σῶμα, ᾧ ἐκ τοῦ ἄρτου ἡ σύστασις ἦν, καὶ
΄ \ x Bh! αἑ ee ee a c , ce» ς , ὃ x τρόπον τινὰ Kal αὐτὸ ἄρτος ἦν᾽ ἐνταῦθα Te ὡσαύτως 6 ἄρτος ἁγιάζεται διὰ
, - ‘ > , > A , ‘ , oN Ψ A a“ λόγου Θεοῦ καὶ ἐντεύξεως, ov διὰ βρώσεως καὶ πόσεως προϊὼν εἰς TO σῶμα
a , > > 24 BY A - ~ , 7 Ν a” τοῦ Λόγου, ἀλλ᾽ εὐθὺς πρὸς TO σῶμα τοῦ Λόγου μεταποιούμενος, καθὼς εἴρη- ται ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου, ὅτι Τοῦτο ἔστι τὸ σῶμα pou. Then he speaks to the same purpose of wine being turned into blood, and subjoins: Πᾶσι τοῖς πεπιστευκόσι TH οἰκονομίᾳ τῆς χάριτος “Eavrov ἐνσπείρει διὰ τῆς σαρκὸς,
Ὁ > YU ΄ - οἷς ἡ σύστασις ἐξ οἴνου τε καὶ ἄρτου ἐστὶ, τοῖς σώμασι τῶν πεπιστευκότων
Lg ΠΥ a ~ ὸ \ 16d C228 Lee 6 a 3 κατακιρνάμενος, ὡς av τῇ πρὸς τὸ ἀθάνατον ἑνώσει, καὶ ἄνθρωπος τῆς ap- θαρσίας μέτοχος γένοιτο. ταῦτα δὲ δίδωσι, τῇ τῆς εὐλογίας δυνάμει πρὸς ἐκεῖνο μεταστοιχειώσας τῶν φαινομένων τὴν φύσιν.
(0) Oratio de Resurrectione Christi, sive in Pascha prima, tom. iii. Ρ. 289. ‘O γὰρ πάντα κατὰ τὴν δεσποτικὴν αὐθεντίαν οἰκονομῶν, οὐκ > , 4 > a , > , A 4 A » - ΕΣ ἀναμένει τὴν ἐκ τῆς προδοσίας ἀνάγκην, καὶ τὴν ληστρικὴν ἔφοδον τῶν Ἰου- δαίων, καὶ τὴν τοῦ Πιλάτου παράνομον κρίσιν, ὥστε τὴν ἐκείνων κακίαν, ἀρχη-
A Cee ary a x a“ > , , ΄ . Ὁ Η͂ γὸν καὶ αἰτίαν τῆς κοινῆς τῶν ἀνθρώπων σωτηρίας γενέσθαι᾽ ἀλλὰ προλαμ-
, a 5 , A ᾿»» A Ἁ wre - ec , , βάνει τῆ οἰκονομίᾳ τὴν ἔφοδον, κατὰ τὸν ἄῤῥητον τῆς ἱερουργίας τρόπον
‘ “ > , ae a ¢ A » ‘ ‘ , καὶ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἀόρατον, καὶ ‘Eavtov προσήνεγκε προσφορὰν καὶ θυσίαν ΓΚ ς « eae ‘ “ ΝΗ δ.» A a a ξδ΄ Ψ \ , _ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν, ὁ ἱερεὺς ἅμα καὶ 6 ἀμνὸς Tod Θεοῦ, ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ
5 » ΄- “- a“ φ. - κόσμου" πότε τοῦτο ; ὅτε βρωτὸν Ἑαυτοῦ τὸ σῶμα, Ϊ καὶ πότιμον τὸ αἷμα τοῖς συνοῦσιν ἐποίησε. πάντι γὰρ τοῦτο δῆλόν ἐστιν, ὅτι οὐκ ἂν βρωσθείη παρὰ
δ , - ἀνθρώπων πρόβατον, εἰ μὴ τῆς βρώσεως ἡ σφαγὴ καθηγήσαιτο" ὁ τοίνυν
APPENDIX. 95
A \ a - ~ > a > κ na > , a » δοὺς τὸ σῶμα τοῖς μαθηταῖς Αὐτοῦ εἰς βρῶσιν, σαφῶς ἐνδείκνυται τῷ ἤδη τοῦ ἀμνοῦ τὴν θυσίαν ἐντελῆ γεγεννῆσθαι" οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἢν τὸ σῶμα τοῦ ἱερείου
~ , - ΄ πρὸς ἐδωδὴν ἐπιτήδειον, εἴπερ ἔμψυχον ἦν. οὐκοῦν ὅτε παρέσχε τοῖς μαθηταῖς > a“ ~ ’ ‘ ~ oe 2 e ag \ \ 7 “ ἐμφαγεῖν τοῦ σώματος, καὶ τοῦ αἵματος ἐμπιεῖν, ἤδη κατὰ τὸ θέλητον τοῦ τὸ μυστήριον οἰκονομοῦντος ἀῤῥήτως τε καὶ ἀοράτως τὸ σῶμα ἐτέθυτο.
(9) Orat. in Baptism. Christi, p. 370. Αλρτος ἐστὶ τέως κοινὸς" ἀλλ᾽
a ΄- ~ ΄ ὅταν αὐτὸν τὸ μυστήριον ἱερουργήση, σῶμα Χριστοῦ λέγεταί τε καὶ γίνεται.
Henke. Crave ἐστ ἈΠ): 370:
Ed. Rome, 1792.
(a) De Sacerdotio, tom. iii. p. 1, 2, 3. Dignitas sacerdotalis mysteriis, sacrificiis, peccatorum remissioni per manuum imposi- tionem dicata.—Sacerdotium ccelum volitans ascendit ad Deum, pro- cidensque [ante excelsum thronum |] instanter pro servis orat Domi- num—ut Spiritus Sanctus pariter descendat, sanctificetque dona in terris proposita; cumque oblata fuerint tremenda mysteria immor- talitate plena, preside sacerdote orationem pro cunctis faciente, tunc anime accedentes, per illa tremenda mysteria macularum purificatio- nem accipiunt.
(Ὁ) De Tis, qui Filiti Det Naturam scrutantur, tom. 111. p. 423. Diligenter intuere, quomodo in manibus panem accipiens benedixit, ac fregit in figuram immaculati sui corporis, calicemque in figuram pretiosi sanguinis sui benedixit, deditque discipulis suis.
(c) Ibid. p. 682. Participa immaculatum corpus, et sanguinem Domini tui fide plenissima, certus, quod agnum ipsum integre come- das. Ignis immortalis sunt mysteria Christi. Cave ea temere scru- teris, ne in ipsorum participatione comburaris. Abraham patriarcha ceelestibus angelis terrenos cibos apposuit, illique eos comederunt. Ingens sane miraculum est cernere spiritus incorporeos, in terris carnium cibos manducantes; sed hoc profecto excedit [omnem admi- rationem,] omnem mentem, omnemque sermonem, quod nobis fecit unigenitus Christus Salvator noster. Ignem quippe et Spiritum manducandum atque bibendum prestitit nobis carne vestitis, corpus videlicet, et sanguinem suum.
Macarius AtcyrptTiacus senior floruit A.D. 373.
Apud Bibliothecam Vett. P.P. Ed. Galland, 1770.
(a) Homil. iv. p. 16. Σωματοποιεῖ Ἕαυτὸν καὶ εἰς βρῶσιν καὶ πόσιν ὁ , ‘ ,΄ > - > γος ε , A ΒΩ a Κύριος, καθὼς γέγραπται ἐν τῷ Ἐὐαγγελίῳ᾽ 6 τρώγων τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον, , > ‘ an . a > ¢ > , ‘4 > , > ζήσεται εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα" ἵνα ἀναπαύσῃ ἀνεκλαλήτως, καὶ ἐμπλήσῃ εὐφρο- , - rd σύνης πνευματικῆς τὴν Ψυχῆν.
d
26 APPENDIX.
. ΄“ ,
(Ὁ) Homil. 27. p. 108. Kar ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρὸν οἱ μεγάλοι, καὶ δίκαιοι,
‘ “- cs ‘ » c ἢ + δ a 4 , ᾿ καὶ προφῆται, ὅτι μὲν ἔρχεται ὁ Λυτρωτὴς, ἤδεισαν᾽ ὅτι δὲ πάσχει, καὶ σταυ- ροῦται, καὶ αἷμα ἐκχεῖται ἐπὶ τοῦ σταυροῦ, οὔτε ἤδεισαν, οὔτε ἤκουσαν" οὔτε > / > cal es A , e pod , A A ’ ἀνέβη αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τὴν καρδίαν, ὅτι ἔσται βάπτισμα πυρὸς καὶ Πνεύματος ε , 5 μετὰ > - 5 Χ , ΄ 2 X τ > , = Ayiov’ καὶ ὅτι ἐν τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ προσφέρεται ἄρτος kat οἶνος, ἀντίτυπον τῆς
A > lal A ~ .“ . Vee € ΄ > “
σαρκὸς Αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος" καὶ ὅτι οἱ μεταλαμβάνοντες ἐκ τοῦ Φφαινο-
, ΄“- ~ , > , μένου ἄρτου, πνευματικῶς τὴν σάρκα τοῦ Κυρίου ἐσθίουσι.
S. Αμββοϑβιῦβ floruit A.D. 374.
Edit. Parisiis, A.D. 1686.
(a) De Benedictione Patriarcharum, cap. 9. tom. 1. p. 525. Hune panem dedit (Christus) Apostolis, ut dividerent populo credentium ; hodieque dat nobis eum, quem ipse quotidie sacerdos consecrat suis verbis. Hic ergo panis factus est esca sanctorum. Possumus et ipsum Dominum accipere, qui suam carnem nobis dedit, sicut Ipse ait, Ego sum panis vite, &c.— Etiamsi quis mortuus fuerit, tamen si panem meum acceperit, vivet in eternum. [1186 enim accipit, qui seipsum probat. Qui autem accipit, non morietur peccatoris morte, quia panis hic remissio peccatorum est.
(c) In Psalm. trigesimum octavum, Ὁ. 853. Vidimus Principem sacerdotum, vidimus et audivimus offerentem pro nobis sanguinem suum: sequimur ut possumus sacerdotes; ut offeramus pro populo sacrificium ; etsi infirmi merito, tamen honorabiles sacrificio—quia etsi nunc Christus non videtur offerre, tamen Ipse offertur in terris, quando Christi corpus offertur; immo Ipse offerre manifestatur in nobis, cujus sermo sanctificat sacrificium quod offertur.
(4) Comment. in Lucam, lib. i. tom. i, p. 1275. Atque utinam nobis quoque adolentibus altaria, sacrificium deferentibus adsistat angelus, immo se prebeat videndum: non enim dubites adsistere angelum, quando Christus adsistit, quando Christus immolatur.
(e) De Fide ad Gratianum, lib. iv. cap. 10. tom. ii. p. 543. Nos autem quotiescunque sacramenta sumimus, que per sacre orationis mysterium in carnem transfigurantur et sanguinem, mortem Domini annunciamus.
(Ὁ De Mysteriis Pasch. cap. i. p. 298. edit. 1586. Pascha enim passio Salvatoris est, sicuti beatus Apostolus dicit: Pascha enim nos- trum immolatus est Christus. Ad hoc enim humanum corpus Christus accipiens, se in passionem Paschz mysterio consecravit.
(8) De Mysteriis, cap. 8. tom. 11, p. 337. Ista autem esca, quam accipis, iste panis vivus qui de ccelo descendit, vite zternz substan- tiam subministrat ; et quicunque hunc non manducaverit, morietur in zeternum,
APPENDIX. 27
(h) Ibid. Abraham vero cum potiretur victoria, tunc illi occurrit Melchisedec, et protulit ea que Abraham veneratus accepit.
(i) Ibid. cap. 9. p. 338, 339. Forte dicas: aliud video, quomodo tu mihi asseris, quod corpus Christi accipiam? Et hoc nobis adhuc superest ut probemus—probemus non hoc esse quod natura formavit, sed quod benedictio consecravit ; majoremque esse vim benedictionis quam nature ; quia benedictione etiam natura mutatur. [He speaks of Moses’s rod being changed into a serpent, and the waters of Egypt being turned into blood, &c.]—quod si tantum valuit sermo Ehe, ut ignem de ccelo deponeret; non valebit Christi sermo, ut species mu- tet elementorum? [He afterwards adds, ] Preeter nature ordinem generavit. Et hoc quod conficimus corpus, ex Virgine est,—vera utique caro Christi, quee crucifixa est, que sepulta est: vere ergo carnis Illius sacramentum est. Ipse clamat Dominus Jesus; hoc est corpus meum. Ante benedictionem verborum ccelestium alia species nominatur, post consecrationem corpus significatur. Ipse dicit sangui- nem suum. Ante consecrationem aliud dicitur, post consecrationem sanguis nuncupatur. Et tu dicis: Amen, hoc est, verum est. Quod os loquitur, mens interna fateatur; quod sermo sonat, affectus sentiat.
(k) Ibid. p. 341. In illo sacramento Christus est; quia corpus est Christi: non ergo corporalis esca, sed spiritalis est. Unde Apostolus de typo Ejus ait; quia Patres nosiri escam spiritalem manducaverunt, et potum spiritalem biberunt ; corpus enim Dei corpus est spiritale : corpus Christi corpus est divini Spiritus; quia Spiritus est Christus.
(1) De Officiis, lib. i. cap. 41. tom. ii. p. 54. Cum videret (Lauren- tius) Xystum episcopum suum ad martyrium duci, flere ccepit, non passionem illius, sed suam remansionem. Itaque his verbis appellare ceepit: quo progrederis sine filio, pater; quo, sacerdos ‘sancte, sine diacono properas? nunquam sacrificium sine ministro offerre consue- veras. Quid in me ergo displicuit, pater? num degenerem pro- basti? experire certe, utrum idoneum ministrum elegeris ? cui com- misisti Dominici sanguinis consecrationem, cui consummandorum consortium sacramentorum, huic consortium tui sanguinis negas ?
(m) Ibid. cap. 48. p. 63. Umbra in lege, imago in evyangelio, veritas in ceelestibus. Ante agnus offerebatur, offerebatur et vitulus ; nunc Christus offertur—et offert se Ipse quasi sacerdos, ut peccata nostra dimittat. Hic in imagine, ibi in veritate, ubi apud Patrem pro nobis quasi advocatus intervenit.
(n) De Incarnationis Dominice Sacramento, cap. 4. p. 708. Nam etsi credas a Christo veram carnem esse susceptam, et offeras trans- figurandum corpus altaribus; non distinguas tamen naturam divini- tatis et corporis, et tibi dicitur; si recte offeras, non recte autem divi-
das, peccasti.
28 APPENDIX.
S. Hreronymus floruit A.D. 378. Edit. Paris. 1706.
(a) Ad Heliodorum, tom. iv. pars ii. p. 10. Absit ut de his quidquam sinistrum loquar, quia Apostolico gradui succedentes, Christi corpus sacro ore conficiunt.
(b) Ad Marcellam, ib. p. 547. Recurre ad Genesin, et Melchise- dec regem Salem, hujus principem invenies civitatis: qui jam tunc in typo Christi panem et vinum obtulit, et mysterium Christianum in salvatoris corpore et sanguine dedicavit.
(c) Adversus Jovinianum, tom. iv. pars ii. p. 198. [Dominus] in typo sanguinis sui non obtulit aquam, sed vinum, (they are the words of Jovinian allowed by St. Hierome.)
(d) Ibid. p. 218. Quasi non et nos Christi corpus zqualiter acci- piamus. Una est in mysteriis sanctificatio, Domini et servi, nobilis et ignobilis—quanquam pro accipientium meritis diversum fiat quod unum est.
(e) Adversus Vigilantium, ibid. p. 284. Male facit ergo Romanus episcopus, qui super mortuorum hominum Petri et Pauli, secundum nos ossa veneranda, secundum te vilem pulvisculum, offert Domino sacrificia, et tumulos eorum Christi arbitratur altaria.
(f) Ad Theophilum, ibid. p. 335. He cites Matt. v. 23. and adds, Si munera nostra absque pace offerre non possumus, quanto magis et Christi corpus accipere? Qua conscientia ad Eucharistiam Christi accedam, et respondebo Amen, cum de caritate dubitem porrigentis ?
(g) Advers. Pelagianos, ibid. lib. iii. p. 543. Sic docuit { Christus | Apostolos suos, ut quotidie in corporis illius sacrificio credentes audeant loqui; Pater Noster, qui es in celis, ὅδ.
(h) Ad Evangelum, tom. ii. p. 571. Neque carnis et sanguinis victimas immolaverit (Melchisedec), et brutorum sanguinem anima- hum, dextra susceperit: sed pane et vino, simplici puroque sacrificio, Christi dedicaverit sacramentum.
(i) Ibid. p. 572. He points at Heb. v. 11. Difficultatem rei proce- mio exaggerat, dicens ; super quo multus est nobis sermo, et in interpre- tabilis : non quia Apostolus id non potuerit interpretari, sed quia illius temporis non fuerit. Hebrzis enim, id est, Judeis persuadebat, non jam fidelibus, quibus passim proderet sacramentum.
(k) Ad Hedibiam, tom. iv. p.171. Nos autem audiamus panem, quem fregit Dominus, deditque discipulis suis, esse corpus Domini Salvatoris, Ipso dicente ad eos: accipite, et comedite, hoc est corpus meum: et calicem illum esse, de quo iterum locutus est: Bibite ex hoc omnes: hic est sanguis, &c.—Si ergo panis qui de celo descendit, cor- pus est Domini; et vinum quod discipulis dedit, sanguis, gui pro mul-
APPENDIX. 29
tis effusus est,—ascendamus cum Domino cenaculum magnum, stratum, atque mundatum: et accipiamus ab Eo sursum calicem Novi Testa- menti; ibique cum Eo Pascha celebrantes, inebriemur ab ΘΟ vino sobrie- tatis. Non enim est regnum Dei cibus et potus ; sed justitia, et gaudium, et pax in Spiritu Sancto. Nec Moyses dedit nobis panem verum ; sed Dominus Jesus: Ipse conviva et convivium, Ipse comedens et Qui comeditur. [Illus bibimus sanguinem, et sine Ipso potare non possumus, et quotidie in sacrificiis Ejus de genimine vitis vere, et vinee Sorec, que interpretatur, eecta, rubentia musta calcamus; et novum ex his vinum bibimus de regno Patris, nequaquam in vetustate litere, sed in novitate Spiritus.
(1) Questiones in Genesin, tom. 11, p.520. (Exponens verba Davidis Psalm. (nobis) cx. ver. 4.) Mysterium nostrum in verbo ordinis sig- nificatur : nequaquam per Aaron irrationalibus victimis immolandis, sed oblato pane et vino, id est, corpore et sanguine Domini Jesu.
(m) In Esaiam, cap. 62. tom. 1, p. 462. Triticum quoque, de quo panis ceelestis efficitur, illud est, de quo loquitur Dominus: caro mea vere est cibus ; rursumque de vino: Ht sanguis meus vere est potus.
(n) In Ezechiel., cap. 44. p. 1026. Offertis panes meos, panes vide- licet propositionis in cunctis ecclesiis, et orbe terrarum, de uno pane pullulantes.
(0) In Malach., p. 1811. Polluimus panem, id est, corpus Christi, quando indigni accedimus ad altare, et sordidi mundum sanguinem bibimus, et dicimus, mensa Domini despecta est: non quod hoc aliquis audeat dicere ; sed opera peccatorum despiciunt mensam Dei.
(p) Lbid. p. 1813. Sciant carnalibus victimis spirituales victimas successuras. Et nequaquam taurorum hircorumque sanguinem, sed θυμίαμα, id est, sanctorum orationes Domino offerendas, et non in una orbis provincia Judea; nec in una Jude urbe Hierusalem: sed in omni loco offerri oblationem, nequaquam immundam, ut a populo Israel; sed mundam, ut in ceremoniis Christianorum.
(q) Comment. in Matth., cap. 26. tom. iv. p. 128. Postquam typicum Pascha fuerat impletum, et agni carnes cum Apostolis come- derat, assumit panem, qui confortat cor hominis, et ad verum Pasche transgreditur sacramentum ; ut quo modo in prefiguratione Ejus Melchisedec, summi Dei sacerdos, panem et vinum offerens fecerat, Ipse quoque veritatem sui corporis et sanguinis repreesentaret.
(r) In Epistolam ad Titum, cap. 1. p. 418. Tantum interest inter panes propositionis et corpus Christi, quantum inter imaginem et veritatem ; inter exemplaria futurorum, et ea ipsa que per exemplaria prefigurabantur. (He is speaking of the purity that is necessary for them who celebrate the Eucharist.)
(s) Ad Fabiolam, tom. ii. p. 577. Pontifex et episcopus—ut sem-
30 APPENDIX.
per moretur in Sanctis: et paratus sit victimas offerre pro populo, sequester Dei et hominum, et carnes agni sacro ore conficiens.
Gavupentivus Brixiensis floruit A.D. 387. Extat in Biblioth. PP. Tom. iv. edit. Colonize A.D. 1618.
(a) Tractat. in Exod. ii. p. 806. In umbra illius legalis Pasche non unus agnus occidebatur, sed plures. Singuli enim occidebantur per domos : nam sufficere unus non poterat universis; quoniam figura erat, non proprietas Dominice passionis: figura enim non est veritas, sed imitatio veritatis: ergo in hac veritate qua sumus, unus pro omni- bus mortuus est, et idem per singulas ecclesiarum domos in mysterio panis et vini reficit immolatus, vivificat creditus, consecrantes sancti- ficat consecratus. Recte etiam vini specie tum sanguis Ejus exprimitur, quia cum Ipse dicit in Evangelio, Ego sum vitis vera; satis declarat sanguinem suum esse omne vinum, quod in figura passionis Ejus offer- tur—Ipse igitur naturarum Creator et Dominus, qui producit de terra panem, de pane rursus (quia potest, et promisit,) efficit pro- prium corpus; et qui de aqua vinum fecit, et de vino sanguinem suum.
(b) Jbid. p. 807. Quod annunciatum est, credas; quia quod acci- pis, corpus est illus panis ccelestis, et sanguis est illius vere vitis. Nam cum panem consecratum, et vinum discipulis suis porrigeret, sic ait; Hoc est corpus meum, hic est sanguis meus. Credamus, queso, cui credidimus. Nescit mendacium Veritas.—Non infringentes illud os Ipsius solidissimum, Hoc est corpus meum, hic est sanguis meus. Siquid autem superfuerit etiam nunc in uniuscujusque sensu, quod expositione ista non ceperit, ardore fidei concremetur.
(c) Ibid. Vere istud hereditarium munus Testamenti Ejus Novi, quod nobis ea nocte qua tradebatur crucifigendus, tanquam pignus sue preesentiz dereliquit. Hoc illud est viaticum nostri itineris, quo in hac via vite alimur ac nutrimur, donec ad Ipsum pergamus de hoc seeculo recedentes, unde dicebat Idem Dominus: Nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii hominis, et biberitis sanguinem Ejus, non habebitis vitam in vobis ipsis. Voluit enim beneficia sua permanere apud nos, voluit animas pretioso sanguine suo semper sanctificari per imaginem proprie passionis, et ideo discipulis fidelibus mandat, quos primos et Ecclesize sue constituit sacerdotes, ut indesinenter ista vitae aternz mysteria exercerent, que necesse est a cunctis sacerdotibus per singulas totius orbis ecclesias celebrari, usque quo iterum Christus de ccelis adveniat, quo et ipsi sacerdotes, et omnes pariter fidelium populi exemplar pas- sionis Christi ante oculos habentes quotidie, et gerentes in manibus,
APPENDIX. 31
ore etiam sumentes et pectore, redemptionis nostre [ pretium vel gra- tiam | indelebili memoria teneamus, et contra venena diaboli dulcem medicinam sempiterni tutaminis consequamur.
(d) Ibid. Quod autem sacramenta corporis sui et sanguinis in specie panis et vini offerenda constituit, duplex ratio est. Primum, ut imma- culatus Dei Agnus hostiam mundam mundato populo traderet cele- brandam, sine ustione, sine sanguine, sine brodio, id est, jure car- nium, et que omnibus ad offerendum prompta esset ac facilis. Deinde quomodo panem de multis tritici granis in pollinem redactis per aquam confici, et per ignem necesse est consummari; rationa- biliter in eo figura accipitur corporis Christi, quia novimus ex multitu- dine totius generis humani unum esse corpus effectum, per ignem Sancti Spiritus consummatum. Natus est enim de Spiritu Sancto—.
S. Auveustinus floruit A.D. 396. Ed. Benedictinorum, A.D. 1679.
(a) Confessionum, lib. ix. cap. 13. tom. i. p. 170. Memoriam sui ad altare tuum, [Deus,] fieri, desideravit (Monica), cui nullius diei preetermissione servierat, unde sciret dispensari victimam sanctam, qua deletum est chirographum, quod erat contrarium nobis.
(b) Epistol. 149. ad Paulinum, tom. 11. p. 509. Voventur autem omnia que Deo offeruntur, maxime sancti altaris oblatio.
(c) Ibid. (in verba 1 Epistol. ad Timoth. i. ver. 1.) Sed eligo in his verbis hoc intelligere, quod omnis vel pene omnis frequentat ecclesia, ut precationes accipiamus dictas, quas facimus in celebrati- onem sacramentorum, antequam illud, quod est in mensa Domini, incipiat benedici; orationes cum benedicitur et sanctificatur, et ad dis- tribuendum comminuitur, quam totam petitionem fere omnis ecclesia Dominica oratione concludit.—In hujus sanctificationis preparatione, existimo Apostolum jussisse proprie fieri mpocevyas,—interpellationes autem, cum populus benedicitur.
(4) Epistol. ad Bonifacium 185, ibid. p. 658. Convivium Domini, unitas est corporis Christi, non solum in sacramento altaris sed etiam in vinculo pacis,
(e) De Doctrina Christiana, lib. 111. cap. 16. tom. iii. pars 1. p. 52. (in Joan. vi. 53. Nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii hominis, &c.) Facinus vel flagitium videtur jubere; figura ergo est, precipiens passioni Dominicze communicandum, et suaviter atque utiliter in me- moria recondendum, quod caro Ejus pro nobis crucifixa et vulne-. rata sit.
(f) In Leviticum, ibid. p. 516, 517. Cum Dominus dicat, Nisi manducaveritis carnem meam, &c., quid sibi vult, quod a sanguine sacrificiorum, que pro peccatis offerebantur, tantopere populus pro-
oe APPENDIX.
hibetur, si illis sacrificiis hoc unum sacrificium significabatur, in quo vera fit remissio peccatorum: ἃ cujus tamen sacrificii sanguine in alimentum sumendo, non solum nemo prohibetur, sed ad bibendum potius omnes exhortantur, qui volunt habere vitam ?
(g) De sermone Domini in Monte, lib. ii. cap. 7. tom. 111. pars 2. p. 209. Panis quotidianus, aut pro 115 omnibus dictus est, que hujus vite necessitatem sustentant, aut pro sacramento Corporis Christi, quod quotidie accipimus: aut pro spiritali cibo, de quo idem Dominus dicit, Ego sum panis, &c.
(h) Tract. in Joannem xi. ibid. p. 376. Jesus non se credebat eis. Tales sunt omnes catechumeni; ipsi jam credunt in nomine Christi, sed Jesus non se credit eis. Si dixerimus catechumeno, Credis in Christum ? respondet, Credo, et signat se (cruce Christi): jam crucem Christi portat in fronte, et non erubescit de cruce Domini sui. Inter- rogemus eum, Manducas carnem Filii hominis, et bibis sanguinem ? Nescit quid dicimus, quia Jesus non se credidit ei—Nesciunt cate- chumeni quid accipiant Christiani.
(i) Tract. in Joannem xxvi. ibid. p. 494. Credere enim in Eum, hoc est manducare panem vivum. Qui credit, manducat; invisibiliter saginatur quia invisibiliter renascitur ; intrare quisquam potest nolens, accedere ad altare potest nolens, accipere sacramentum potest nolens, credere non potest nisi volens.
(k) Jbid. p. 498. Aliud est Sacramentum, aliud virtus Sacra- menti.
Ibid. p. 499. Hic est panis de celo descendens—Sed quod pertinet ad virtutem Sacramenti, non quod pertinet ad visibile Sacramentum : qui manducat intus, non foris ; qui manducat in corde, non qui premit dente.
(1) Ldid. p. 500. Hujus rei Sacramentum, id est, unitatis corporis et sanguinis Christi alicubi quotidie, alicubi certis intervallis dierum in Dominica mensa preeparatur, et de mensa Dominica sumitur; qui- busdam ad vitam, quibusdam ad exitium: res vero [psa cujus Sacra- mentum est, omni homini ad vitam, nulli ad exitium, quicumque Ejus particeps fuerit.
(m) Jbid. p. 501. Qui non manet in Christo, et in quo non manet Christus, proculdubio nec manducat [ spiritaliter] carnem Ejus, nec bibit Ejus sanguinem, [licet carnaliter et visibiliter premat dentibus Sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi;] sed magis . tante rei Sacramentum ad judicium sibi manducat et bibit.
(n) Tract. in Joan. xxvii. ibid. p. 502. Si ergo videritis Filium hominis ascendentem ubi erat prius ; certe vel tune videbitis, quia non eo modo quo putatis erogat corpus suum; certe vel tunc intelligetis, quia gratia Ejus non consumitur morsibus.
APPENDIX. 33
(o) Ibid. p. 506. Ut carnem Christi et sanguinem Christi non edamus tantum in sacramento, quod et multi mali; sed usque ad Spiritus participationem manducemus et bibamus, ut in Domini cor- pore tanquam membra maneamus, ut Ejus spiritu vegetemur.
(p) Ibid. Tract. in Joan. 80. p. 703. Accedit verbum ad elemen- tum, et fit sacramentum.
(q) In Psalm. xxxiii. tom. iv. p. 210, 211. Erat autem, ut nostis, sacrificium Judzorum antea secundum ordinem Aaron in victimis pecorum, et hoc in mysterio: nondum erat sacrificium corporis et sanguinis Domini, quod fideles norunt,—quod sacrificium nunc diffu- sum est toto orbe terrarum,—sublatum est ergo sacrificium Aaron, et ceepit esse sacrificium secundum ordinem Melchisedec.
(r) In Psalm. xxxix. (nobis xl.) Ibid. p. 334. Sacrificia ergo illa, tamquam verba promissiva, ablata sunt, [data sunt completiva]. Quid est, quod datum est completivum? corpus quod nostis, quod non omnes nostis; quod utinam qui nostis, omnes ad judicium non noye- ritis. Videte, quando dictum est. Christus enim Ile est Dominus noster, modo loquens ex membris suis, modo loquens ex persona sua. Sacrificium, inquit, et oblationem noluisti. Quid ergo? Nos jam hoc tempore sine sacrificio dimissi sumus? Absit: corpus autem perfecisti mihi. Ideo illa noluisti, ut hoc perficeres; illa voluisti, antequam hoc perficeres. Perfectio promissorum abstulit verba promittentia. Nam si adhuc sunt promittentia, nondum impletum est, quod promissum est. Hoc promittebatur quibusdam signis: ablata sunt signa promit- tentia, quia exhibita est veritas promissa. In hoc corpore sumus, hujus corporis participes sumus: et qui non nostis noveritis, et cum didiceritis, utinam non ad judicium accipiatis. Qui enim manducat et bibit indigne, judicium 5101 manducat et bibit. Perfectum nobis est corpus, perficiamur in corpore.
(5) In Psalm. xcviii. (nobis xcix.) Ibid. p. 1065. Timeo adorare ter- ram, ne damnet me Qui fecit ccelum et terram : rursum timeo non ado- rare scabellum pedum Ejus—et digit mihi Scriptura, Terra scabellum pedum meorum, Fluctuans converto me ad Christum, quia Ipsum quero hic; et invenio quomodo sine impietate adoretur terra, sine impietate adoretur scabellum pedum Ejus. Suscepit enim de terra terram: quia caro de terra est, et de carne Marie carnem accepit. Et quia in ipsa carne hic ambulayit, et ipsam carnem nobis manducandam ad salutem dedit; nemo autem illam carnem manducat, nisi prius adora- verit: inventum est, quemadmodum adoretur tale scabellum pedum Domini, et non solum non peccemus adorando, sed peccemus non adorando, Numquid autem caro vivificat ? Ipse Dominus dixit, cum de ipsa commendatione ejusdem terre loqueretur, Spiritus est Qui vivificat, caro autem nihil prodest. Ideo et ad terram quamlibet cum
Θ
34 APPENDIX.
te inclinas atque prosternis, non quasi terram intuearis, sed [lum Sanctum, Cujus pedum scabellum est quod adoras; propter Ipsum enim adoras: ideo et hic subjecit, Adorate scabellum pedum Ejus, quo- niam sanctus est. Quis sanctus est? In Cujus honore adoras scabel- lum pedum Ejus. Et cum adoras Illum, ne cogitatione remaneas in carne, et ab Spiritu non vivificeris: Spiritus est enim inquit, Qui vivi- ficat ; caro autem nihil prodest.—Et mox p. 1066, he introduceth Christ pronouncing these words, Jo. vi. 53. 63, and thus explaining them, spirita- liter intelligite quod locutus sum: non hoc corpus quod videtis, man- ducaturi estis ;—sacramentum aliquod vobis commendavi, spiritaliter intellectum vivificabit vos. tsi necesse est illud visibiliter celebrari, oportet tamen invisibiliter intelligi.
(Ὁ) Sermo lxxi. de verbis Domini, tom. v. pars i. p. 391. Π|υὰ etiam [siguis manducaverit ex hoc pane vivet in eternnm| quomodo intellecturi sumus? Numquid etiam illos hic poterimus accipere, de quibus dicit Apostolus, quod judicium sibi manducent et bibant; cum ipsam carnem manducent, et ipsum sanguinem bibant? Numquid et Judas magistri venditor et traditor impius, (quamvis primum ipsum manibus Ipsius confectum sacramentum carnis et sanguinis Ejus cum ceteris discipulis, sicut apertius Lucas Evangelista declarat, mandu- caret et biberet) mansit in Christo, aut Christus in eo? Jam multi denique, qui vel corde ficto carnem illam manducant et sanguinem bibunt, vel cum manducaverint et biberint, apostate fiunt, numquid manent in Christo, aut Christus in eis? sed profecto est quidam modus manducandi illam carnem, et bibendi illum sanguinem, quo modo qui manducaverit et biberit, in Christo manet, et Christus in eo.
(tt) S. Ambros. De Sacrament., lib. v. cap. 4. p. 378. Ed. Par. Dixi vobis, quod ante verba Christi quod offertur, panis dicatur; ubi Christi verba deprompta fuerint, jam non panis dicitur, sed corpus appellatur.
(u) Serm. cxii. Ibid. Quis est panis de regno Dei, nisi Qui dicit, Ego sum panis vivus, qui de celo descendi? noli parare fauces, sed cor. Inde commendata est ἰδία cena. Ecce credimus in Christum, cum fide accipimus. In accipiendo novimus quid cogitemus. Modi- cum accipimus, et in corde saginamur. Non ergo quod videtur, sed quod creditur, pascit.
(w) De verbis Apostoli, Serm. cxxxi. Ibid. p. 640, 641. Audi- vimus veracem Magistrum, Divinum Redemptorem, humanum Salva- torem, commendantem nobis pretium nostrum, sanguinem suam. Locutus est enim nobis de corpore et sanguine suo: corpus dixit escam, sanguinem potum, sacramentum fidehum agnoscunt Fideles. —Tunc autem hoc erit, id est, vita erit unicuique corpus et sanguis Christi; si quod in sacramento visibiliter sumitur, in ipsa veritate
APPENDIX. 35
spiritaliter manducetur, spiritaliter bibatur. Audivimus enim Ipsum Dominum dicentem, Spiritus est, qui vivificat.
(x) Enchiridion, tom. vi. pars i. p. 238. Neque negandum est, defunctorum animas pietate suorum viventium relevari, cum pro illis sacrificium Mediatoris offertur, vel eleemosyne in ecclesia fiunt. Sed iis hee prosunt, qui cum viverent, ut hec sibi postea prodesse pos- sent, meruerunt.—Est enim quidam vivendi modus, nec tam bonus ut non requirat ista post mortem, nec tam malus ut ei non prosint ista post mortem—Quocirca hic omne meritum comparatur, quo possit post hanc vitam relevari quispiam vel gravari.
(y) De civitate Dei, lib. x. cap. 5. tom. vii. p. 241. Sacrificium ergo visibile invisibilis sacrificii sacramentum, id est, sacrum signum est.
(z) Ibid. cap. 6. Hoc est sacrificium Christianorum: multi unum corpus in Christo. Quod etiam sacramento altaris fidelibus noto fre- quentat Ecclesia, ubi ei demonstratur, quod in ea re quam offert, ipsa offeratur.
[A] Ibid. lib. x. cap. 20. p. 256. Jesus Christus sacrificium maluit esse quam sumere—per hoc et sacerdos est, Ipse offerens, Ipse et oblatio. Cujus rei sacramentum quotidianum esse voluit Ecclesiz sacrificium : que cum Ipsius capitis corpus sit, selpsam per Ipsum discit offerre. Hujus veri sacrificii multiplicia variaque signa erant sacrificia prisca sanctorum.
(B) Lbid. lib. xvi. cap. 22. p. 435. [Cum Melchisedec Abrahz benediceret] ibi primum apparuit sacrificium, quod nunc a Christianis offertur toto terrarum orbe.
(C) Ibid. lib. xvii. cap. 5. p. 467. Manducare panem ; quod est, est in Novo Testamento sacrificium Christianorum.—p. 466. He pro- duces the words of God to Eli, 1 Sam. ii. 36, and adds, Quod ergo addidit, manducare panem, etiam ipsum sacrificii genus eleganter ex- pressit, de quo dicit sacerdos Ipse, Panis, quem Ego dedero, caro mea est pro seculi vita. Ipsum est sacrificium, non secundum ordinem Aaron, sed secundum ordinem Melchisedec: qui legit, intelligat.
(Ὁ) Ibid. lib. xvii. cap. 17. p. 480. Tu es sacerdos in eternum, ex eo quod jam nusquam est sacerdotium et sacrificium secundum or- dinem Aaron, et ubique offertur sub sacerdote Christo, quod protulit Melchisedec, quando benedixit Abraham.
(E) Ibid. cap. 20. p. 484. Non est bonum homini, nisi quod mon- ducabit, et bibet. Quid credibilius dicere intelligitur, quam quod ad participationem mense hujus pertinet, quam sacerdos Ipse Mediator Testamenti Novi exhibet secundum ordinem Melchisedec de corpore et sanguine suo? Id enim sacrificium successit omnibus illis sacri- ficiis Veteris Testamenti, que immolabantur in umbra futuri: propter
36 APPENDIX.
quod etiam vocem illam in Psalmo xxxix. [nobis xl.] Ejusdem Media- toris per prophetiam loquentis agnoscimus: sacrificium et oblationem noluisti, corpus autem perfecisti mihi. Quia pro omnibus illis sacri- ficiis et oblationibus corpus Ejus offertur, et participantibus minis- tratur.
(F) Lib. xxi. cap. 25. p. 646, 647. Non sacramento tenus, sed revera corpus Christi manducare, {id est] in Christo manere, ut in illo maneat et Christus.
[6] Contra Faustum, lib. xix. cap. 13. tom. viii. p. 320. Prima sacramenta ablata sunt—et alia sunt instituta virtute majora, utilitate meliora, actu faciliora, numero pauciora.
(H) Ibid. lib. xx. cap. 18. Christiani peracti ejusdem sacrificii memoriam celebrant, sacrosancta oblatione et participatione corporis et sanguinis Christi.
(1) Lbid. cap. 21. p- 348. Sacrificare Deo in memoriis martyrum, quod frequentissime facimus, illo duntaxat ritu, quo Sibi sacrificari Novi Testamenti manifestatione precepit: quod pertinet ad illum cultum, qui /atria dicitur, et Uni Deo debetur.
(K) Ibid. p.348. Hujus sacrificii caro et sanguis ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur ; in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur; post ascensum Christi per sacra- mentum memorie celebratur.
(L) Ibid. Contra adversarium Legis et Prophetarum, lib. i. cap. 20. p- 571. Mentioning Malachi i. 11, he says, Incensum enim, quod est Greece θυμίαμα, sicut exponit Johannes in Apocalypsi, orationes sunt sanctorum.
(M) Ibid. lib. ii. cap. 9. p. 599. Mediatorem Dei et hominum, hominem Christum Jesum, carnem suam nobis manducandam biben- dumque sanguinem dantem, fideli corde atque ore suscipimus.
(N) Contra Cresconium, lib. i. cap. 25. tom. ix. p. 403. Quid, de ipso corpore et sanguine Domini, unico sacrificio pro salute nostra? Quamvis Ipse Dominus dicat, Nisi guis manducaverit carnem Filii hominis, et biberit Ejus sanguinem, non habebit vitam, &c., nonne idem Apostolus docet etiam hoc perniciosum male utentibus fieri? Ait enim: Quicumque manducaverit panem, et biberit calicem Domini indigne, reus erit corporis et sanguinis Domini.
(O) De spiritu et litera, cap. 11. tom. x. pars i. p. 94. Θεοσέβεια —Dei cultus dici poterat, qui in hoc maxime constitutus est, ut anima Ei non sit ingrata. Unde et in ipso verissimo et singulari sacrificio, Domino Deo nostro gratias agere admonemur.
(P) De Meritis ac Remissione peccatorum, lib. i. cap. 24. Ibid. p. 19. Optime Punici Christiani baptismum ipsum nihil aliud quam salutem, et sacramentum corporis Christi nihil aliud quam vitam vyocant.
APPENDIX. 37
Unde, nisi ex antiqua, ut existimo, et apostolica traditione, qua ec- clesiz Christi institutum tenent, preeter baptismum et participationem mens Dominice, non solum ad regnum Dei, sed nec ad salutem et vitam zternam posse quemquam hominum pervenire ?—Quid aliud [tenent] etiam, qui sacramentum mensz Dominice vitam vocant, nisi quod dictum est, Hgo sum panis.
(Q) De Peccatorum meritis, ac remissione, lib. ii. cap. 26. Ibid. Ρ. 62, 63. Quod accipiunt [Catechumeni |, quamvis non sit corpus Christi, sanctum est tamen, et sanctius quam cibi quibus alimur, quoniam sacramentum est. Verum et ipsos cibos, quibus ad necessi- tatem sustentandz hujus vite alimur, sanctificari idem Apostolus dixit, per verbum Dei et orationem, qua oramus, utique nostra cor- puscula refecturi. Sicut ergo ista ciborum sanctificatio non efficit, ut quod in os intraverit non in ventrem vadat et in secessum emittatur per corruptionem, qua terrena omnia solvuntur, unde et ad aliam escam nos Dominus hortatur; ita sanctificatio catechumeni, si non fuerit baptizatus, non ei valet ad intrandum in regnum celorum, aut ad peccatorum remissionem.
(R) De Trinitate, lib. iii. cap. 4. tom. viii. p. 798. Nec linguam quippe ejus, nec membranas, nec atramentum, nec significantes sonos lingue editos, nec signa literarum conscripta pelliculis, corpus Christi et sanguinem dicimus; sed illud tantum, quod ex frugibus terre ac- ceptum et prece mystica consecratum rite sumimus ad salutem spiri- talem in memoriam pro nobis Dominic passionis: quod cum per manus hominum ad illam visibilem speciem perducatur, non sanctifi- catur, ut sit tam magnum sacramentum, nisi operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei.
N. B. This is misplaced, but cannot now be removed, because the reader is directed to it by the letter R.
S. Joannes Curysostomus floruit A.D. 398.
Ed. Savile, 1612.
(a) Homil. ad populum Antioch., tom. vi. p. 605. “Exess τράπεζαν
c
oO
πνευματικὴν βούλει μαθεῖν, πῶς καὶ τράπεζά σοι γίνεται ; τρώγων Μοῦ τὴν σάρκα ἐν ’Epot μένει.
(0) De Incomprehensibili Dei natura. Ibid. p. 407. Σφόδρα ἐστέ- vata, ὅτι τοῦ μὲν συνδούλου διαλεγομένου, πολλὴ ἡ σπουδὴ, ἐπιτεταμένη ἡ προθυμία συνωθούντων ἀλλήλους καὶ μέχρι τέλους παραμένοντων. τοῦ δὲ Χριστοῦ φαίνεσθαι μέλλοντος ἐπὶ τῶν ἱερῶν Μυστηρίων, κένη καὶ ἔρημος 7 ἐκκλησία γίνεται.
De Beato Philogonio, tom. v. p. ὅ09. ἫἪ γὰρ τράπεζα αὕτη τάξιν
-“ eq A ‘ ~ > ‘ τῆς φάτνης πληροῖ. Kai yap kai ἐνταῦθα κείσεται TO Σῶμα τὸ Δεσποτικὸν, οὐχὶ
38 APPENDIX.
ἐσπαργανωμένον, καθάπερ τότε, ἀλλὰ Πνεύματι πανταχόθεν ᾿Αγίῳ περιστελ- λόμενον. ἴσασιν οἱ μεμνημένοι τὰ λέγομενα. οἱ μὲν οὖν μάγοι προσεκύνησαν μόνον" σύ δε, ἂν μετὰ καθαροῦ προσέλθης συνειδότος, καὶ λαβεῖν σοι Αὐτὸ συγχωρήσομεν, καὶ ἀπελθεῖν οἰκάδε.
(4) In Psalm. cix. tom. 1. p. 731. Καὶ διὰ τί εἶπε, κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδὲκ ; καὶ διὰ τὰ Μυστήρια, ὅτι κἀκεῖνος ἄρτον καὶ οἶνον προσήνεγκε τῷ ᾿Αβραὰμ' καὶ διὰ τὸ ἐλεύθεραν εἶναι ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου ταύτην τὴν ἵερω- σύνην.
(6) In Psalm. cxxxiii. Ibid. p. 821. πΠόσης ἐννόησον ἁγιωσύνης σοι δεῖ τῷ πολλῷ μείζονα σύμβολα δεξαμένῳ, ὧν ἐδέξατο τὰ ἅγια τῶν ἀγίων τότε. οὐ γὰρ χερουβὶμ ἔχεις, GAN’ Αὐτὸν τῶν χερουβὶμ Δεσπότην ἐνοικοῦντα᾽ οὐδὲ σταμνὸν καὶ μαννὰ καὶ πλάκας λίθινας, καὶ τὴν ῥάβδον τὴν ᾿Ααρὼν, ἀλλὰ Σῶμα καὶ Αἷμα Δεσποτικὸν, καὶ Πνεῦμα ἀντὶ γράμματος, καὶ χάριν ὑπερβαίνουσαν λογισμὸν ἀνθρώπινον, καὶ δωρεὰν ἀνεκδιήγητον. ὅσῳ μειζόνων ἠξιώθης συμ- βόλων, καὶ φρικτῶν μυστηρίων, τοσούτῳ μείζονος ὑπεύθυνος εἶ τῆς ἁγιω- σύνης, καὶ πλείονος κολάσεως, εἰ παραβαίνῃς τὰ ἐπιτεταγμένα.
(f) In Psalm. χον. (citans verba Malachie.) Ibid. p.918. Ὅρα πῶς λαμπρῶς καὶ περιφανῶς τὴν μυστικὴν ἡρμήνευσε τράπεζαν, THY ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν ; θυμίαμα δὲ λέγει καθαρὸν, τὴν προσευχὴν τὴν ἁγίαν τὴν μετὰ τῆς θυσίας ἀναφερομένην. ἐστὶ μὲν οὖν θυσία καθαρὰ, πρώτη μὲν ἡ μυστικὴ τρά- πεζα, τὸ οὐράνιον, τὸ ὑπερκόσμιον θῦμα.
(8) Ibid. p. 919. Ἔχεις οὖν πρώτην θυσίαν, τὸ Σωτήριον Δῶρον" δευ- τέραν, τὴν τῶν Μαρτύρων᾽ τρίτην, τὴν τῆς προσευχῆς" τετάρτην, τὴν τοῦ ἀλαλαγμοῦ πέμπτην, τὴν τῆς δικαιοσύνης" ἕκτην, τὴν τῆς ἐλεημοσύνης" ἑβδόμην, τὴν τῆς αἰνέσεως" ὀγδόην, τὴν τῆς κατανύξεως" ἐννάτην, τὴν τῆς ταπεινοφροσύνης" δεκάτην, τὴν τοῦ κηρύγματος.
(h) De Sacerdotio, lib. iii. tom. vi. p. 16. Ἕστηκε γὰρ ὁ ἱερεὺς, οὐ πῦρ καταφέρων, ἀλλὰ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ “Aytov, καὶ τὴν ἱκετηρίαν ἐπὶ πολὺ ποιεῖται, οὐχ ἵνα τὶς λαμπὰς ἄνωθεν ἁφθεῖσα καταναλώσῃ τὰ προκείμενα, ἀλλ᾽ ἵνα ἡ χάρις ἐπιπεσοῦσα τῇ θυσίᾳ, SV ἐκείνης τὰς ἁπάντων ἀνάψῃ ψυχὰς.
(i) Lib. vi. Ibid. p. 46. Ὅταν δὲ καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἽΔγιον καλῇ, καὶ τὴν φρικωδεστάτην ἐπιτελῇ Θυσίαν, καὶ τοῦ κοινοῦ πάντων συνεχῶς ἐφάπτηται Δεσπότου, ποῦ τάξομεν αὐτὸν ;
(k) De proditione Jude, tom. v. p. 557. Ἔν αὐτῇ τῇ τραπέζῃ ἑκά- τερον γίνεται Πάσχα, καὶ τὸ τοῦ τύπου, καὶ τὸ τῆς ἀληθείας. καθάπερ yap οἱ ζώγραφοι ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ πίνακι καὶ τὰς γράμμας περιάγουσι, καὶ τὴν σκιὰν γρά- ovat, καὶ τότε τὴν ἀλήθειαν τῶν χρωμάτων αὐτῷ ἐπιτεθέασιν᾽ οὕτω καὶ 6 Χριστὸς ἐποίησεν, ἐπ᾽ αὐτῆς τῆς τραπέζης καὶ τὸ τυπικὸν Πάσχα ὑπέγραψε, καὶ τὸ ἀληθινὸν προσέθηκε.
(1) Ibid. p. ὅ59. οὐδὲ γὰρ ἄνθρωπός ἐστιν Ὁ ποιῶν τὰ προκείμενα γενέ- σθαι Σῶμα καὶ Αἷμα Χριστοῦ" ἀλλ᾽ Αὐτὸς ὁ σταυρωθεὶς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν Χριστὸς" σχῆμα πληρῶν ἕστηκεν ὁ ἱερεὺς, τὰ ῥήματα φθεγγόμενος ἐκεῖνα" ἡ δὲ δύναμις καὶ ἡ χάρις, τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστὶ. Τοῦτό Mov ἐστὶ τὸ Saud, φησι. τοῦτο τὸ ῥῆμα
APPENDIX. 39
μεταῤῥυθμίζει τὰ προκείμενα. καὶ καθάπερ ἡ φωνὴ ἐκείνη ἡ λέγουσα᾽ αὐξά- νεσθε, καὶ πληθύνεσθε, &c. ἐῤῥέθη μὲν ἅπαξ, διὰ πάντος δὲ τοῦ χρόνου γίνε- ται ἔργῳ ἐνδυναμοῦσα τὴν φύσιν τὴν ἡμέτεραν πρὸς παιδοποιΐαν᾽ οὕτω καὶ φωνὴ αὕτη ἅπαξ λεχθεῖσα καθ᾽ ἑκάστην τράπεζαν ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις, ἐξ ἐκείνου μέχρι σήμερον, καὶ μέχρι τῆς Αὐτοῦ παρουσίας, τὴν θυσίαν ἀπηρτισ- μένην ἐργάζεται.
(m) Homil. in Cemeterii appellationem, Ibid. p. 566. Ὅταν ἐστήκῃ πρὸ τῆς τραπέζης ὁ ἱερεὺς, Tas χεῖρας ἀνατείνων εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν, καλῶν TO Πνεῦμα τὸ “Aytov, τοῦ παραγενέσθαι καὶ ἅψασθαι τῶν προκειμένων, πολλὴ ἡσυχία, πολλὴ σιγή. ὅταν διδῷ τὴν χάριν τὸ Πνεῦμα, ὅταν κατέλθῃ, ὅταν a ΄“ , a δ A ΄ » , x > ἅψηται τῶν προκειμένων, ὅταν ἴδῃς τὸ πρόβατον ἐσφαγιασμένον καὶ ἀπηρ-
4 LZ , ΄ ‘ 4, , , ’ » τισμένον, τότε θόρυβον, τότε ταραχὴν, τότε φιλονεικίαν, τότε λοιδορίαν ἐπει- σάγεις ;
(n) De Resurrectione mortuorum, tom. vi. p. 718. Ei γὰρ μὴ ἦν s>¢ A - 2 \ ~ > “Ὁ ΄ A , > a c ἀῤῥαβὼν τοῦ Πνεύματος καὶ viv, οὐκ ἂν συνέστῃ τὸ βάπτισμα, οὐκ ἂν ἅμαρ-
es » ys > Ἄ , wine, ΄ Cee € 6 , τημάτων ἄφεσις ἐγένετο, οὐκ ἂν δικαιοσύνη καὶ ἁγιασμός, οὐκ ἂν υἱοθεσίαν ἐλάβομεν, οὐκ ἂν Μυστηρίων ἀπελαύσαμεν (Σῶμα γὰρ καὶ Αἷμα Μυστικὸν οὐκ ἂν πότε γένοιτο τῆς τοῦ Πνεύματος χάριτος χωρὶς) οὐκ ἂν ἱερέας ἐσχήκα- μεν᾽ οὐδὲ γὰρ ταύτας δυνατὸν τὰς χειροτονίας ἄνευ ἐκείνης τῆς ἐπιφοιτήσεως γίνεσθαι.
(0) Homil. de Penitentia, or, de Eucharistia in Enceniis. Ibid. p- 791. Μὴ ὅτι ἄρτος ἐστὶν ἴδῃς, μὴδ᾽ ὅτι οἶνός ἐστι νομίσῃς" οὐ yap ὡς ai λοιπαὶ βρῶσεις εἰς ἀφεδρῶνα χωρεῖ. ἄπαγε, μὴ τοῦτο νόει. ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ κηρὸς πυρὶ προσομιλήσας οὐδὲν ἀπουσιάζει, οὐδὲν περισσεύει" οὕτω καὶ ὧδε νόμιζε συναλίσκεσθαι τὰ Μυστήρια τῇ τοῦ Σώματος οὐσίᾳ. A little before this citation are these words, πυρὸς πνευματικοῦ ἐκ τῆς ἀχράντου ἀναβλύ- ζοντος τραπέζης.
(00) Hom. de filio prodigo, post medium, tom. vii. p. 543. My τις TOV κατηχουμένων, μή τις τῶν μὴ ἐσθιόντων, μή τις τῶν κατασκόπων, μή τις τῶν μὴ δυναμένων θεάσασθαι τὸν μόσχον ἐσθιόμενον, μή τις τῶν μὴ δυνα- μένων θεάσασθαι τὸ οὐράνιον Αἷμα τὸ ἐκχυνόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, μή τις ἀνάξιος τῆς ζώσης Θυσίας, μὴ τις ἀμύητος, μή τις μὴ δυνάμενος ἀκαθάρ- τοις χείλεσι προσψαύσασθαι τῶν φρικτῶν Μυστηρίων.
(p) Homil. 7. In Mattheum, tom. ii. p. 48. Οὐδὲ γὰρ ὕδωρ ἀπὸ
, Seat ΄ a a“ > > 2 - ‘ \ ᾿ » \ Ld ταύτης ἡμῖν παρέχει τῆς πηγῆς, GAN Αἷμα ζῶν, kal μὴν θανάτου ἐστὶ σύμ-
> ‘ a , ” Bodov, ἀλλὰ ζωῆς γέγονεν αἴτιον.
(q) Homil. 25. In Mattheum. Ibid. pp. 178-9. Καὶ τὰ φρικώδη μυστήρια καὶ πολλῆς γέμοντα τῆς σωτηρίας, τὰ καθ᾽ ἑκάστην τελούμενα σύνα- ξιν, Εὐχαριστία καλεῖται, ὅτι πολλῶν ἐστιν εὐεργετημάτων ἀνάμνησις---- διό δὴ καὶ ὁ ἱερεὺς ὑπὲρ τῆς οἰκουμένης, ὑπὲρ τῶν προτέρων, ὑπὲρ τῶν νῦν, ὑπὲρ τῶν γεννηθέντων ἔμπροσθεν, ὑπὲρ τῶν μετὰ ταῦτα ἐσομένων | εἰς] ἡμᾶς εὐχαριστεῖν κελεύει, τῆς θυσίας προκειμένης ἐκείνης.
(τ) Homil. 50. In Mattheum. Ibid. p. 582, To δὲ προσελθεῖν μετὰ
40 APPENDIX.
πίστεως, ov TO λαβεῖν ἐστὶ μόνον TO προκείμενον, ἀλλὰ Kal TO μετὰ καθαρᾶς ᾿ς a = κ , καρδίας ἅψασθαι, τὸ οὕτω διακεῖσθαι, ὡς Αὐτῷ προσίοντας τῷ Χριστῷ. Τί yap εἰ μὴ φωνῆς ἀκούεις ; φθεγγομένου Αὐτοῦ [ ἀκούεις] διὰ τῶν Ἐὐαγγελι- στῶν. πιστεύσατε τοίνυν, ὅτι καὶ νῦν ἐκεῖνο τὸ δεῖπνόν ἐστιν, ἐν ᾧ Αὐτὸς > ΄ « > ‘ A > al a , > ‘ 4 -~ Ἂν » ἀνέκειτο" οὐδὲν yap ἐκεῖνο τοῦτου διενήνοχεν. οὐδὲ yap τοῦτο μὲν ἄνθρωπος ἐργάζεται" ἐκεῖνο δὲ Αὐτὸς" ἀλλὰ καὶ τοῦτο κἀκεῖνο Αὐτὸς" ὅταν τοίνυν τὸν ἱερέα ἐπιδιδοῦντά σοι ἴδης, μὴ τὸν ἱερέα νόμιζε τὸν τοῦτο ποιοῦντα, ἀλλὰ τὴν a “ - > τοῦ Χριστοῦ χεῖρα εἶναι ἐκτεινομένην. (5) Homil. in Matth. 82. Ibid. p. ὅ10. Καὶ Αὐτὸς οὖν ἔπιεν ἐξ αὐτοῦ, " - ” > τ ἵνα μὴ ταῦτα ἀκούοντες εἴπωσι, τί οὖν, αἷμα πίνομεν, καὶ σάρκα ἐσθίομεν ; Ν Ψ ~ > ~ ‘ A . ‘ ‘ , pa , καὶ τότε θορυβηθῶσιν ἐντεῦθεν. καὶ yap ὅτε τοὺς περὶ τούτων ἐκίνει λόγους, ‘ F ces A AS , ΕΝ > ‘ \ , καὶ πρὸς Ta ῥήματα ταῦτα πολλοὶ ἐσκανδαλίζοντο᾽ iva οὖν μὴ καὶ τότε ταραχ- θῶσι, πρῶτος Αὐτὸς τοῦτο ἐποίησεν ἐνάγων αὐτοὺς ἀταράχως εἰς τὴν κοινω- νίαν τῶν Μυστηρίων. (t) Ibid. p. 5138. οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν μυστηρίων ποιῶμεν, οὐ τοῖς κειμέ- ΄ > ΄ > AY Wa 4 > - ͵ ic ‘ 4 , νοις μόνον ἐμβλέποντες, ἀλλὰ τὰ ῥήματα Αὐτοῦ κατέχοντες. ὁ μὲν yap λόγος > as , ε Η ᾿ nes > , 5 2 2O7 Αὐτοῦ ἀπαραλόγιστος, ἡ δὲ αἴσθησις ἡμῶν εὐεξαπάτητος" οὗτος οὐδέποτε διέπεσεν, αὐτή δὲ τὰ πλείονα σφάλλεται. ἐπεὶ οὖν ὁ Λόγος φησὶ, Τοῦτό ἐστι τὸ Σῶμά Μου, καὶ πειθώμεθα, καὶ πιστεύωμεν, καὶ νοητοῖς Αὐτὸ βλέπωμεν ΄ ΄ > ΄ ὀφθαλμοῖς, οὐδὲν γὰρ αἰσθητὸν παρέδωκεν ἡμῖν ὁ Χριστὸς" ἀλλ᾽ αἰσθητοῖς μὲν πράγμασι, πάντα δὲ νοητά. (u) Ibid. p. 614. Σκόπει τοίνυν, μὴ καὶ αὐτὸς ἔνοχος γένῃ τοῦ σώματος mnie, a a a a Ξ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. ἐκεῖνοι κατέσφαξαν τὸ ἸΠανάγιον Σῶμα" σὺ δὲ c am ¢ ΄ “ A > , « A « “ A > ΄“- La , ῥυπαρᾷ ὑποδέχῃ ψυχῇ.----καὶ ἀναφύρει ‘Eavrov ἡμῖν. καὶ οὐ τῇ πίστει μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ αὐτῷ τῷ πρά Σῶμα Αὐτοῦ ἡμᾶς κ κευάζει" τί ὖν οὐ ῷ τῷ πράγματι Σῶμα Αὐτοῦ ἡμᾶς κατασκευάζει" τίνος οὖν οὐκ » , τὰ ΄, > , = , ἔδει καθαρώτερον εἶναι ταύτης ἀπολαύοντα τῆς θυσίας ; M4 > > a (w) Ibid. p. 515. Kav στρατηγὸς tis 7, κἂν ὕπαρχος, Kav αὐτὸς ὁ τὸ , ,ὔ > , ‘ , , , » , ‘ διάδημα περικείμενος, ἀναξίως δὲ προσίῃ, κώλυσον. μείζονα ἐκείνου τὴν » ’ ᾿» 5 ‘ > A > τος 5 ‘ , ᾿ Ν > , ἐξουσίαν ἔχεις.----εἰ δὲ αὐτὸς οὐ τολμᾷς, ἐμοὶ πρόσαγε, καὶ οὐ συγχωρήσω “- ~ φΦ ~ , ~ ταῦτα τολμᾶσθαι. καὶ TO αἷμα τὸ ἐμαυτοῦ προήσομαι πρότερον, ἢ τοῦ Αἵματος a “ μεταδώσω οὕτω φρικώδους παρὰ τὸ προσῆκον.
(x) Homil. in Joannem xiv. tom. ii. p. 609. Καὶ ἁγιασμὸς καὶ ἁγια- σμὸς, καὶ βάπτισμα καὶ βάπτισμα, καὶ θυσία καὶ θυσία, καὶ ναὸς καὶ ναὸς, Ν A ᾿ Xo a ‘ , a [2 Φ > εἰ > »“ ‘ ε καὶ περιτομὴ καὶ περιτομὴ οὕτω καὶ χάρις καὶ χάρις" ἀλλ᾽ ἐκεῖνα μὲν ὡς
, “ ἍΤ > , τύποι, ταῦτα δὲ ὡς ἀλήθεια.
(y) Hom. 47. Ibid. p. 750. Ταῦτα πάντα ἔδει μυστικῶς νοεῖν καὶ πνευ- ματικῶς--πνεῦμά ἐστι, καὶ ζωή τουτέστι, θεῖα καὶ πνευμάτικά ἐστι. τί οὖν; > ,᾿ c \ > a ΄ \ , ‘ > δι “- > © \ οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ σὰρξ Αὐτοῦ σάρξ ; καὶ σφόδρα μὲν οὖν. καὶ πῶς εἶπεν, ἡ σὰρξ
΄- - ~ a οὐκ ὠφελεῖ οὐδὲν; οὐ περὶ τῆς ‘Eavrod σαρκὸς λέγων, [μὴ γένοιτο] ἀλλὰ περὶ τῶν σαρκικῶς ἐκλαμβανόντων τὰ λεγόμενα. τί δέ ἐστι τὸ σαρκικῶς νοῆ- A ς “ > 4 , τον, A ‘ ‘ a , “ ε σαι; τὸ ἁπλῶς εἰς τὰ προκείμενα ὁρᾶν.----Χρὴ δὴ μὴ οὕτω κρίνειν τοῖς ὁρω- ΄ > ‘ , x ΄ - »” > “ , - μένοις, ἀλλὰ πάντα τὰ μυστήρια τοῖς ἔνδον ὀφθαλμοῖς κατοπτεύειν. ταῦτα
,ὔ ΄ γάρ ἐστι πνευματικῶς.
APPENDIX. 41
(z) Hom. 46. Ibid. p. 746. “Iva οὖν μὴ μόνον κατὰ τὴν ἀγάπην τοῦτο a ᾿ » 4 a > > A A ΄- ϑ > , > ~ 4 [ἐν] γενώμεθα, ἀλλὰ καὶ κατ᾽ αὐτὸ τὸ πρᾶγμα eis ἐκείνην ἀνακερασθῶμεν τὴν ΄ ‘ - = a , = > , , ς oa r σάρκα. διὰ τῆς τροφῆς τοῦτο γίνεται, Hs ἐχαρίσατο, βουλόμενος ἡμῖν δεῖξαι \ ΄ a ᾿» Wipe ἐν να, ΟΥ̓ a JF ¢ ‘ Ἐπ. τον ‘ 3. if τὸν πόθον, ὃν ἔχει περὶ ἡμᾶς. διὰ τοῦτο ἀνέμιξεν “Εαυτὸν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἀνέφυρε ‘ ~ > a > reas a “ , , “ ~ τὸ Σῶμα Αὐτοῦ εἰς ἡμᾶς, ἵνα ἕν τι γενώμεθα, καθάπερ σῶμα κεφαλῇ συνημ- μένον. (A) Ibid. p. 747. Τοῦτο τὸ Αἷμα ἀξίως λαμβανόμενον ἐλαύνει μὲν δαί-
ν soe my -~ x Ἄν , ᾿ co = ‘ A μονας καὶ πόῤῥωθεν εἶναι ποιεῖ, καλεῖ δὲ ἀγγέλους πρὸς ἡμᾶς, καὶ τὸν Δεσ-
, ~ > ΄ ~ ΄ \ > > ces ‘ 3 . 7» TOTHY τῶν ἀγγέλων Τούτου χωρὶς οὐκ ἐτόλμα ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς εἰς τὰ ἄδυτα > , . ~ \ 2 c ΄ > , ~ “ εν ΟΥ̓; ς , » εἰσιέναι" Τοῦτο τὸ Αἷμα ἱερέας ἐχειροτόνει" Τοῦτο ἐκάθηρεν ἁμαρτίας ἐν
vee ’, . > et ~ , , ᾿»Ὦ > \ > \ \ a ε τοις τυποις᾽ εἰ δὲ εν TOLS τυποὶς τοσαύτην εσχέν ἰσχῦν, εἰ τὴν σκιαν ουτῶς O
θάνατος ἔφριξε, τὴν ᾿Αλήθειαν Αὐτὴν, εἶπε μοι, πῶς οὔκ ἂν ἐφοβήθη ; Τοῦτο ἐξεχύθη τὸ Αἷμα, καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἐποίησε βατόν. φρικτὰ ὄντως τὰ μυστήρια τῆς ἐκκλησίας, φρικτὸν ὄντως τὸ θυσιαστήριον᾽ then he compares _the Eucharist to the tree of life. (B) Ibid. Ei yap of ῥυποῦντες τὴν πορφύραν τὴν βασιλικὴν κολάζονται ε , oe ς γε) a OS Η \ Ἔα, , , ὁμοίως, ὥσπερ οἱ διαῤῥήγνυντες" τί ἀπεικὸς καὶ τοὺς ἀκαθάρτῳ διανοίᾳ δεχο- μένους τὸ Σῶμα, τὴν αὐτὴν ὑπομεῖναι τιμωρίαν τοῖς Αὐτὸ διαῤῥήξασι διὰ τῶν ἥλων. (C) In Acta Apostolorum, Hom. 21. tom. iv. p. 735. Ἔν χερσὶν c , ‘4 ’ , > , Φ , a > , = ἡ θυσία, καὶ πάντα πρόκειται ηὐτρεπισμένα᾽ πάρεισιν ἔλγγελοι, ᾿Αρχάγγελοι πάρεστιν ὁ "Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ" μετὰ τοσαύτης φρίκης ἑστήκασιν ἅπαντες" παρε- στήκασιν ἐκεῖνοι [Διάκονοι] βοῶντες, πάντων σιγώντων, καὶ ἡγῇ ἁπλῶς γίνεσθαι τὰ γινόμενα ; οὐκοῦν καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ἀπλῶς, καὶ τὰ ὑπὲρ τῆς Ἔκκλη- σίας, καὶ τὰ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἱερεών προσφερόμενα, καὶ τὰ ὑπὲρ τοῦ πληρώματος ; A ΄ . > ‘ , ‘ , , 5 ’ a” iY ς \ , μὴ γένοιτο" ἀλλὰ πάντα μετὰ πίστεως γίνεται" τί οἴει τὸ ὑπὲρ Μαρτύρων προσφέρεσθαι; τὸ κληθῆναι ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ὥρᾳ; κἂν μάρτυρες ὦσι, κἂν ὑπὲρ μαρτύρων, μεγάλη τιμὴ, τὸ ὀνομασθῆναι, τοῦ Δεσπότου παρόντος, τοῦ θανά- του ἐπιτελουμένου ἐκείνου, τῆς φρικτῆς θυσίας, τῶν ἀφάτων Μυστηρίων. (D) Homil. 7. In primam Epistolam ad Corinth., tom. iii. p. 280. Μυστήριον καλεῖται, ὅτε οὐχ ἅπερ ὁρῶμεν πιστεύομεν GAN ἕτερα ὁρῶμεν, καὶ ἕτερα πιστεύομεν. τοιαύτη γὰρ ἡ τῶν μυστηρίων ἡμῶν φύσις. ἑτέρως γοῦν ἐγὼ, καὶ ἑτέρως ὁ ἄπιστος περὶ τούτων διακείμεθα.----ἀκούων λοῦτρον ἐκεῖνος, ἁπλῶς ὕδωρ νομίζει" ἐγὼ δὲ οὐ τὸ ὀρώμενον ἁπλῶς βλέπω, ἀλλὰ τὸν a a i 4 \ a , > , ~ ee te τῆς Ψυχῆς καθαρμὸν τὸν διὰ Tod Πνεύματος.----ἀκούω σῶμα Χριστοῦ" ἑτέρως ἐγὼ νοῶ τὸ εἰρημένον, ἑτέρως ὁ ἄπιστος. κ. τ. Δ. (E) Homil. 18. in secundam Epistolam ad Corinth, Ibid. p. 647. ᾿'. ,@ 9% , χά. 4 “- > ΄ e τ “ > , Ἔστι δὲ ὅπου οὐδὲ διέστηκεν ὁ ἱερεὺς τοῦ ἀρχομένου" οἷον, ὅταν ἀπολαύειν δέῃ τῶν φρικτῶν μυστηρίων" ὁμοίως γὰρ πάντες ἀξιούμεθα τῶν αὐτῶν--- ῃ ρ μυστηρίων' ὁμοίως γὰρ μ πᾶσιν ἕν Σῶμα πρόκειται, καὶ Ποτήριον ἕν" N. B. This is misplaced, but cannot now be removed, because the reader is directed to it by the letter E. (F) Hom. 24. in Epistolam primam ad Corinth., tom. ili. p. 396. f
42 APPENDIX.
\ , a > r ε > ~ ΨΕΩΝ , “- a a Τὸ ποτήριον τῆς εὐλογίας, ὁ εὐλογοῦμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία TOD Αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστι; σφόδρα πιστῶς καὶ φοβερῶς εἴρηκεν. ὃ γὰρ λέγει, τοῦτο 4 a νὴ fen we) , Δ Cr aga ee) ee ee - - eon ἔστιν" ὅτι τοῦτο τὸ ἐν ποτηρίῳ ὃν, ᾿Εκεῖνό ἐστι τὸ ἀπὸ τῆς πλευρᾶς ῥεῦσαν, καὶ ᾿Εκείνου μετέχομεν.
. > = Arp sick A ~ , \
(G) Ibid. p. 397. ᾿Ενταῦθα δὲ ἐπὶ τὸ πολλῷ φρικωδέστερον καὶ peya- λοπρεπέστερον τὴν ἱερουργίαν μετεσκεύασε, καὶ τὴν θυσίαν αὐτὴν ἀμείψας, καὶ ἀντὶ τῆς τῶν ἀλόγων σφαγῆς 'Ἑαυτὸν προσφέρειν κελεύσας.
(H) Ibid. ‘O ἄρτος, ὃν κλῶμεν, οὐχὶ κοινωνία τοῦ Σώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐστι; διατὶ μὴ εἶπε, μετοχή ; ὅτι πλέον τὶ δηλῶσαι ἠβουλήθη, καὶ πολλὴν > , ‘ , > A a“ , , ‘ , ἐνδείξασθαι τὴν συναφείαν. οὐ γὰρ τῷ μετέχειν μόνον καὶ μεταλαμβάνειν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τῷ ἑνοῦσθαι κοινωνοῦμεν. Καθάπερ γὰρ τὸ Σῶμα ’Exeive ἥνωται
~ r - σ Ν ε Cal > ~ XN -~ » , c , ‘\ , ‘ τῷ Χριστῷ, οὕτω καὶ ἡμεῖς Αὐτῷ διὰ τοῦ ἄρτου τούτου ἑνούμεθα. διὰ τί δὲ
΄ A ΄“ A A - ‘ “ > , 2 ‘ > Cad προσέθηκεν, Ov κλῶμεν ; τοῦτο yap ἐπὶ μὲν τῆς Εὐχαριστίας ἐστὶν ἰδεῖν γι- νόμενον᾽ ἐπὶ δὲ τοῦ σταυροῦ οὐκέτι, ἀλλὰ καὶ τουναντίον τούτῳ he refers to John xix. 36.
(1) Ibid. Eira ἐπειδὰν εἶπε, κοινωνία τοῦ Σώματος, τό δὲ κοινωνοῦν ἕτε-
, > > , τ “ Ν Ἄ \ - as \ pov ἐστιν ἐκείνου, οὗ κοινωνεῖ, Kal ταύτην THY δοκοῦσαν εἶναι μικρὰν διαφο-
. > A ” \ , ~ t »»" , > rf , pay ἀνεῖλεν. εἴπων yap, κοινωνία Tod Σώματος ἐζήτησε πάλιν ἐγγύτερόν τι
> mn. \ A ΡΥ “ κατα τὸ a ~ es) € \ , x εἰπεῖν" διὸ καὶ ἐπήγαγεν, Ὅτι εἷς ἄρτος, ἕν σῶμά ἐσμεν of πολλοὶ. Ti yap λέγω κοινωνίαν, φησὶν ; αὐτό ἐσμεν ἐκεῖνο τὸ σῶμα. τί γὰρ ἐστιν ὁ ἄρτος ; Σῶμα Χριστοῦ. τί δὲ γένονται οἱ μεταλαμβάνοντες ; σῶμα Χριστοῦ. οὐχὶ
, A > A - a J, A ce > ~ ’ σώματα πολλὰ, ἀλλὰ σῶμα ἕν. καθάπερ γὰρ ὁ ἄρτος ἐκ πολλῶν συγκείμενος κόκκων ἥνωται, κ. τ. Δ.
(ΚῚ Ibid. Ἐπειδὴ ἡ προτέρα τῆς σαρκὸς φύσις ἡ ἀπὸ γῆς διαπλασθεῖσα > A “ ς , » θ -“ \ - ΄ ΕΣ ce c ἀπὸ Ths ἁμαρτίας ἔφθασε νεκρωθῆναι, kai ζωῆς γενέσθαι ἔρημος, ἑτέραν, ws a » ‘ , A , > , A c - ri , ‘ > ἂν εἴποι Tis, μάζαν Kai ζύμην ἐπεισήγαγε, THY Ἑαυτοῦ Sapka, φύσει μὲν ov- σαν τὴν αὐτὴν, ἁμαρτίας δὲ ἀπηλλαγμένην καὶ ζωῆς γέμουσαν" καὶ πᾶσιν a” : te , ¢ ’ὔ ΄ ‘ X , > ΄ ἔδωκεν αὐτῆς μεταλαμβάνειν, ἵνα ταύτῃ τρεφόμενοι, καὶ τὴν προτέραν ἀποθέ-
A a > A ‘ A > ΄ A a , > -“ μενοι τὴν νεκρὰν, εἰς τὴν ζωὴν τὴν ἀθάνατον διὰ τῆς τραπέζης ἀνακερασθῶ- μεν ταύτης.
(L) Ibid. p. 399. Πῶς τὸ Σῶμα τοῦ ἐπὶ πάντων Θεοῦ, τὸ ἄμωμον, τὸ καθαρὸν, τὸ τῇ θείᾳ ἐκείνῃ φύσει ὁμιλῆσαν, δ 6 ἐσμὲν καὶ ζῶμεν, δι’ οὗ πύλαι θανάτου κατεκλάσθησαν, καὶ οὐρανοῦ ἁψίδες ἀνεώχθησαν, Τοῦτο μετὰ τοσαύτης ὕβρεως ληψόμεθα ;
= \ x > 2 , CEO > Lyre! , >
(Μὴ Ibid. p. 400. Σὺ δὲ οὐκ ἐν φάτνῃ ὁρᾷς, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν θυσιαστηρίῳ, οὐ
io 4 > ᾽ « ,΄ ~ A a A ~ ΄
γυναῖκα κατέχουσαν, ἀλλ᾽ ἱερέα παρεστῶτα, καὶ Πνεῦμα μετὰ πολλῆς τῆς δαψιλείας τοῖς προκειμένοις ἐφιπτάμενον.
(N) Ibid. p. 401. “Ὥσπερ γὰρ τὸ ὡς ἔτυχε προσίεναι, κίνδυνος, οὕτω
\ A ΄σ΄ “ ΄ , > , A Ν ,
TO μὴ κοινωνεῖν τῶν Μυστικῶν Δείπνων ἐκείνων, λιμὸς καὶ θάνατος.
(O) Homil. 3. In Epistolam ad Philippenses, tom. iv. p. 20. οὐκ εἰκῇ ταῦτα ἐνομοθετήθη ὑπὸ τῶν ᾿Αποστόλων, τὸ ἐπὶ τῶν φρικτῶν Μυστηρίων
, , a > , 3, > “ ‘ ΄ , μνήμην γίνεσθαι τῶν ἀπελθόντων. ἴσασιν αὐτοῖς πολὺ κέρδος γινόμενον, ποὰλ-
λὴν τὴν ὠφέλειαν. ὅταν γὰρ ἑστήκῃ λαὸς ὁλόκληρος χεῖρας ἀνατείνοντες,
APPENDIX. 43
4 c A A , ε A , “- » , πλήρωμα ἱερατικὸν, καὶ προκέηται ἡ φρικτὴ Θυσία, πῶς οὐ δυσωπήσομεν ς εὖ ’ a ὑπὲρ τούτων τὸν Θεὸν παρακαλοῦντες ;
(P) In Epistolam ad Hebreos. Homil. 17. Ibid. p. 523. προσφέ-
> > , -~ a ρομεν μὲν, ἀλλ᾽ ἀνάμνησιν ποιούμενοι τοῦ θανάτου Αὐτοῦ.
τὴν αὐτὴν [θυσίαν] αἰεὶ ποιοῦμεν" μᾶλλόν δε ἀνάμνησιν ἐργαζόμεθα θυσίας.
(Q) 1 Epistol. ad Cesarium, tom. iil. p. 22. ed. Paris. p. 744. ed. Traj. 1687. Antequam sanctificetur panis, panem quidem nomina- mus, divina autem illum sanctificante gratia, mediante sacerdote, liberatus est quidem ab appellatione panis, etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit, et non duo corpora sed unum ΕἾ] corpus predicatur.
Victor ANTIOCHENUS in Biblioth. P.P. Col. Acrir, A.D. 1610, floruit circa Ann. Dom. 401.
In 5. Marci Evangelium, cap. xiv. tom. iv. p. 330. Cum autem [Dominus] ad apostolos dicit, Hoc est Corpus Meum. Item: Hic est Sanguis Meus; certo apud se statuant vult, posteaquam benedictio et gratiarum actio, ad panem, vel calicem propositam accesserit, per panis quidem symbolum, corporis Christi; per calicem vero, Ejusdem sanguinis participes se fieri.
Cyrititus ALEXANDRINUS floruit A.D. 412. Edit. Lutetie, A.D. 1638.
(a) Glaphyra in Gen., lib. ii. tom. 1. p. 61. δέχεται δὲ τῆς ὑπὲρ νόμον ἱερωσύνης σύμβολον, τὸ κατευλογῆσαι τὸν ᾿Αβραὰμ, οἶνόν τε καὶ ἄρτους αὐτῷ παρασχεῖν, εὐλογούμεθα γὰρ οὐχ ἑτέρως παρὰ Χριστοῦ.
(aa) Ibid. Αὐτὸν δὲ τῆς ἱερωσύνης τὸν τρόπον, εἰς παράδειξιν τοῦ πράγματος ἐποιεῖτο σαφῆ. ἄρτους γὰρ καὶ οἶνον ἐξεκόμιζεν ὁ Μελχισεδέκ.
(0) De adoratione in Spiritu, &c. Lib. x. p. 355. (Heereticos de- scribens.) Παρὰ τὴν οὖσαν ἀληθῶς ἁγίαν σκηνὴν, ἑαυτοῖς ἑτέραν διαπήγ- νυντες, καὶ ἔξω θίοντες τὸν ἀμνὸν, καὶ ἀπωτάτω που τῆς μιᾶς ἀποφέροντες οἰκίας, καὶ μερίζοντες τὸν ἀμέριστον.
(c) Ibid. lib. xiii. p. 457. Σημαίνει μὲν ἡ τράπεζα, τὴν πρόθεσιν » - » ‘ > 4 , > e DA Ld θ 4 » ἔχουσα τῶν ἄρτων, τὴν ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν, δι’ ἧς εὐλογούμεθα τὸν ἄρτον > , Η > > a , Ά ἐσθίοντες τὸν ἐξ οὐρανοῦ, τουτέστι, Χριστόν.
(4) Ibid. lib. xvii. p. 605, 606. Μυρίαις μὲν γὰρ ὅσαις πόλεσί τε καὶ
, c ~ > , > “4 , - ‘ ‘ ia \ ‘ ‘ “οὶ - κώμαις ἡ τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων ἐπεπλήθη χώρα, τελεῖν δὲ καὶ τὰ ἱερὰ καὶ τὸν ἐπὶ τῷ ὡς οὐκ ἂν
Πάσχα νόμον, ἐν μόνῃ δὲ χρῆναι τῇ ἁγίᾳ πόλει διετύπου Θεὸς εἴῃ θέμις τὸ ἐπὶ Χριστῷ μυστήριον, καθ᾽ ὃν ἂν ἕλοιτο τρόπον, ἤγουν ἐν τύπῳ πάντι δύνασθαι πληροῦν. χῶρος γὰρ μόνος ὁ πρέπων αὐτῷ, καὶ οἰκειότατος ἀλη- θῶς, ἡ ἁγία πόλις, τουτέστιν, ἡ Ἐκκλησία, ἐν 7 καὶ νομιμὸς ἱερεὺς, καὶ διὰ χειρῶν ἡγιασμένων τελεῖται τὰ ἱερὰ, καὶ θυμίαμα προσφέρεται τῷ πάντων
σι = ‘4 , A ‘ ‘ -~ Ul , κρατοῦντι Θεῷ, καὶ θυσία καθαρὰ, κατὰ τὴν τοῦ Προφήτου φωνήν.
44 : APPENDIX.
(e) In Malachiam, tom. iii. p. 830. Upoayopever δὲ, ὅτι μέγα καὶ ἐπιφανὲς ἔσται τὸ ὄνομα Αὐτοῦ παρὰ τοῖς ava πᾶσαν THY ὑπ᾽ οὐρανὸν; Kal ἐν πάντι τόπῳ τε καὶ ἔθνει θυσίαι καθαραὶ καὶ ἀναίμακτοι προσκομισθήσονται τῷ ὀνόματι Αὐτοῦ, κατασμικρυνόντων Αὐτὸν οὐκέτι τῶν ἱερουργῶν, οὔτε μὴν ῥαθύμως προσκομιζόντων Αὐτῷ τὰς πνευματικὰς λατρείας" ἀλλ᾽ ἐν σπουδῇ, καὶ ἐπιεικείᾳ, καὶ ἁγιασμῷ τὰς τῶν νοητῶν θυμιαμάτων εὐωδίας ἀνακομίζειν ἐσπουδακότων, τουτέστι, πίστιν, ἐλπίδα, ἀγάπην, καὶ τὰ ἐξ ἔργων ἀγαθῶν αὐχήματα, προστεταγμένης δηλονότι τῆς Χριστοῦ θυσίας τῆς οὐρανίου καὶ ζωοποιοῦ, δι ἧς κατήργηται θάνατος, καὶ ἡ φθαρτὴ δὴ αὕτη καὶ ἀπὸ γῆς σὰρξ ἀμφιέννυται τὴν ἀφθαρσίαν.
(f) In Johannem, lib. iv. cap. 2. tom. 4. p. 360. Treating on John vi. 53, “ Except ye eat the flesh of,” &c., and having shewed in many words that Christ did not here shew the manner, how His flesh was to be eaten, but the advantage of eating It, and required them to believe, rather than to be inquisitive ; he adds, τοῖς yap ἤδη πεπιστευ- κύσι, διακλάσας τὸν ἄρτον ἐδίδον, λέγων λάβετε, φάγετε" Τοῦτι ἔστι τὸ Σῶμά Μου.---ὁρᾷς ὅπως τοῖς μὲν ἀνοηταίνουσιν ἔτι, καὶ τὸ πιστεύειν ἀζητήτως ἐξωθουμένοις, οὐκ ἐξηγεῖται τοῦ μυστηρίου τὸν τρόπον, τοῖς δὲ ἤδη πεπιστευ- κόσι σαφέστατα διεπὼν εὑρίσκεται. and then repeating John vi. 53, he immediately subjoins, ἀμέτοχοι yap παντελῶς, καὶ ἄγευστοι μένουσι τῆς ἐν ἁγιασμῷ καὶ μακαριότητι ζωῆς, οἱ διὰ τῆς μυστικῆς εὐλογίας οὐ παρα- δεξάμενοι τὸν Yidv.
(6) Ibid. p. 365. Ὥσπερ οὖν ὁ Παῦλος φησὶν, ὅτι μικρὰ ζύμη ὅλον τὸ φύραμα ζυμοῖ, οὕτως ὀλιγίστη πάλιν εὐλογία, σύμπαν ἡμῶν εἰς ἑαυτὴν ἀνα- φύρει τὸ σῶμα, καὶ τῆς ἰδίας ἐνεργείας ἀναπληροῖ, οὕτω τὲ ἐν ἡμῖν γίνεται Χριστὸς, καὶ ἡμεῖς αὖ πάλιν ἐν Αὐτῷ.
(h) Ibid. p. 377. Ὅλον ἤδη τῇ ζωοποιῷ τοῦ Πνεύματος ἐνεργείᾳ τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα πληροῖ: Πνεῦμα γὰρ λοιπὸν τὴν σάρκα καλεῖ, καὶ οὐκ ἀνατρέ - mov τὸ εἶναι σάρκα αὐτὴν" διὰ δὲ τὸ ἀκρῶς ἡνῶσθαί τε Αὐτῷ, καὶ ὅλην τὴν Αὐτοῦ τὴν ζωογόνον ἐνδύσασθαι δύναμιν, ὀφείλουσαν ἤδη καλεῖσθαι τὸ Πνεῦμα.
(1) Contra Nestorium, lib. v. tom. 6. p. 123. Ἔν ἡμῖν ἐστι [Χριστὸς], dia τῆς ἰδίας σαρκὸς ζηνοποιούσης ἡμᾶς ἐν Πνεύματι" οὐ γὰρ ἐπειδήπερ οὐκ ἐσθίεται θεότητος φύσις, διὰ τοῦτο κοινὸν εἶναι φαίῃ τὶς ἂν τὸ ἅγιον σῶμα Χριστοῦ" εἰδέναι δὲ ἀναγκαῖον ὅτι ἴδιον ἔστι σῶμα τοῦ πάντα ξωοποιοῦντος Adyov.
(1) Cyrilli et Synodi Alewandrine Epistol. in Act. Synodi Ephesine Gcumenice. apud Binium, edit. Lutetiz, A.D. 1636, vol. ii. p. 210, 211. Τὴν ἀναίμακτον ἐν ταῖς ᾿Εκκλησίαις τελοῦμεν θυσίαν" προσίμεν τε οὕτω ταῖς μυστικαῖς εὐλογίαις, καὶ ἁγιαζόμεθα, μέτοχοι γενόμενοι τῆς τε ἁγίας σαρκὸς, καὶ τοῦ τιμίου αἵματος τοῦ πάντων ἡμῶν Σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ.--- οὐχ ὡς ἀνθρώπου τῶν καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἑνὸς, καὶ αὐτὴν εἶναι λογιούμεθα. πῶς γὰρ
ye , werd a ἢ ἀνθμώπου σὰρξ ζωοποιὸς ἔσται, κατὰ φύσιν τὴν ἑαυτῆς ; ἀλλ᾽ ὡς ἰδίαν
APPENDIX. 45
ἀληθῶς γενομένην τοῦ δι᾿ ἡμᾶς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἀνθρώπου γεγονότος, καὶ χρημα- τίσαντος᾽ ---ἰ κοινὴ γὰρ σὰρξ οὐ ζωοποιεῖν δύναται. καὶ τούτου μαρτὺς Αὐτὸς 6 Σωτὴρ, λέγων᾽ ἡ σὰρξ οὐκ ὠφελεῖ οὐδὲν" τὸ πνεῦμά ἐστι τὸ ζωο- ποιοῦν" ἐπειδὴ γὰρ ἰδία γέγονε τοῦ λόγον, ταῦτῃ τοὶ νοεῖται, καὶ ἔστι ζωο- ποιός".
(m) Apud Victorem Antiochen. Marc. 14. MS. in Biblioth. Regis Gallie. Thomam de Aquino in Latina Catena P.P. in Luce 22. nec non in Nicete Catena Greca in Mattheum, a Balth. Corderio edita, inquit D. Grabe in Notis ad Ireneum, p. 397. “Iva μὴ ἀποναρκήσωμεν σάρκα Te καὶ αἷμα mpokeipeva βλέποντες ἐν ἁγίαις τραπέζαις τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν, συγκαθιστάμενος ὡς Θεὸς ταῖς ἡμετέραις ἀσθενείαις, ἐνίησι τοῖς προκειμένοις δύναμιν ζωῆς, καὶ μεθίστησιν αὐτὰ πρὸς ἐνεργεῖαν τῆς Ἕαυτοῦ σαρκὸς, ἵνα εἰς μέθεξιν ζωοποιὸν ἔχωμεν αὐτὰ, καὶ οἷον σπέρμα ζωοποιὸν ἐν ἡμῖν εὑρεθῇ τὸ σῶμα τῆς ζωῆς.
Tueoporitus floruit A.D. 423.
Edit. Lutetiz, A.D. 1642.
(a) In Genesin, Interrog. 55. tom. i. p.44. ᾿Αβελτηρίας yap ἐσχάτης προσκυνεῖν TO ἐσθιόμενον.
(b) In Exodum, Interrog. 24. p. 90, Κἀκείνους ἔδει μαθεῖν διὰ τοῦ
ν᾿ “ - as ee ‘ 1 > x ΄ συμβόλου τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ κηδεμονίαν" καὶ ἡμᾶς τοὺς τὸν ἄμωμον ἀμνὸν θυόντας γνῶναι προδιαγραφέντα τὸν τύπον.
(c) In Leviticum, Interrog. 11. p. 124, Πῶς γὰρ ἂν τὶς σωφρονῶν, a & 3-328 > , 5 4 , > 4 x x “ 3 ἢ TO ἀκάθαρτον ὀνομάσοι Θεὸν, ὃ μυσαττόμενος ἀποστρέφεται, ἢ τὸ τῷ ἀλη- θινῷ Θεῷ προσφερόμενον, καὶ παρ᾽ αὑτοῦ ἐσθιόμενον ;
- . e 4 ~
(d) In Psalm. cix. (nobis cx.) p. 852. "Apxerae δὲ τῆς ἱερωσύνης > -~ x 24 4 , € , % Cae x x > ΄ ἐν τῇ νυκτὶ, μεθ᾽ ἣν τὸ πάθος ὑπέμεινεν᾽ ἡνίκα λαβὼν ἄρτον, καὶ εὐχαριστή- σας, ἔκλασε καὶ εἶπε (he recites Matt. xxvi. 26 &c.) εὑρίσκομεν δὲ τὸν Μελχισεδὲκ, καὶ ἱερέα ὄντα καὶ βασιλέα᾽ τύπος γὰρ ἦν τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ ἱερέως καὶ βασιλέως" καὶ προσφέροντα τῷ Θεῷ οὐκ ἄλογα θύματα, ἀλλ᾽ ἄρτους καὶ oivov'—iepatever δὲ νῦν ὁ ἐξ Ἰούδα κατὰ σάρκα βλαστήσας Χριστὸς, οὐκ Αὐτὸς τὶ προσφέρων, ἀλλὰ τῶν προσφερόντων κεφαλὴ χρηματίζων᾽ σῶμα γὰρ Αὐτοῦ τὴν ᾿Εκκλησίαν καλεῖ, καὶ διὰ ταύτης ἱερατεύει ὡς ἄνθρωπος, δέχεται δὲ Ta προσφερομένα ὡς Θεὸς" προσφέρει δὲ ἡ ᾿Εκκλησία τὰ τοῦ
, > a κ᾿ “ὦ ΄ σώματος Αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος σύμβολα.
(dd) In Malach. tom. ii. »ν. 935. Πέπαυται μὲν γὰρ ἡ περιγεγραμμένη τῶν ἱερέων λατρεία, πᾶς δὲ τόπος ἐπιτήδειος εἰς τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ θεραπείαν νενόμισται καὶ τῶν μὲν ἀλόγων θυμάτων τέλος ἔλαβεν ἡ σφαγὴ, μόνος δὲ ὁ ἄμωμος ἀμνὸς ἱερεύεται, ὁ αἴρων τὴν ἁμαρτίαν τοῦ κύσμου.
(6) In primam Epistolam ad Corinth. cap. xi, tom. 3. p. 175.
¢ [The passage in brackets alone answers to the reference given by Johnson in the text. ]
46 APPENDIX.
> , > ᾿ “ες A > , ‘ , ‘ > = \ in a Ανέμνησεν αὐτοὺς τῆς ἱερᾶς ἐκείνης καὶ mavayias νυκτὸς, ἐν 7, Kal TO τυπικῷ
, ‘ , > a ‘ “- ΜΝ A > 4 ” ‘ a Πάσχα τὸ τέλος ἐπέθηκε, καὶ TOU τύπου TO ἀρχέτυπον ἔδειξε, καὶ TOU σωτη- ρίου μυστηρίου τὰς θύρας ἀνέῳξε.
(f) In Epistol. ad Hebreos, cap. ix. v. 28. p. 487. [αὐτὰ δὲ τὰ ἐπουράνια κρείττοσι θυσίαις παρὰ Tavtas.| τουτέστι τῇ λογικῇ, καὶ ἀμώμῳ, καὶ ἁγίᾳ θυσίᾳ οὐράνια δὲ τὰ πνευματικὰ κέκληκεν, οἷς ἡ Ἐκκλησία καθαίρεται.
(6) Ibid. cap. x. v. 9. p. 489. [ἀναιρεῖ τὸ πρῶτον, ἵνα τὸ δεύτερον
, κ > \ a 7 exe ΄ x ‘ a στήσῃ.) πρῶτον εἶπε, THY τῶν ἀλόγων θυσίαν᾽ δεύτερον δὲ THY λογικὴν,
A ce > > - - τὴν ὑπ᾽ Αὐτοῦ προσενεχθεῖσαν.
(h) Epistola 130 ad Timotheum quendam, p. 1003. Αὐτὸς δὲ 6 Κύριος, ov τὴν ἀόρατον φύσιν, ἀλλὰ τὸ σῶμα δώσειν ὑπέσχετο ὑπὲρ THs τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς. 6 γὰρ ἄρτος, φησὶν, (he cites John vi. 51.) κἂν τῇ τῶν θείων μυστηρίων παραδόσει λαβὼν τὸ σύμβολον ἔφη, Τοῦτο ἔστι τὸ Σῶμά Μου.
(i) Dialog. 1. tom. iv. p. 18. Ἔν δὲ γὲ τῇ τῶν μυστηρίων παραδόσει, σῶμα τὸν ἄρτον ἐκάλεσε, καὶ αἷμα τὸ κρᾶμα---᾿ Ἡβουλήθη γὰρ (ὁ Χριστὸς) A ΄“ , ΄ 2 A a“ 4 ~~ 4 τοὺς τῶν θείων μυστηρίων μεταλαγχάνοντας, μὴ τῇ φύσει τῶν βλεπομένων
, > A A ~ ~~ > / 3 ~ , ΄“ > ~ προσέχειν, ἀλλὰ διὰ τῆς τῶν ὀνομάτων ἐναλλαγῆς πιστεύειν TH ἐκ τῆς
, , - ε x ‘ Η͂ ΄ a a & eS χάριτος γεγεννημένῃ μεταβολῇ. 6 yap δὴ τὸ φύσει σῶμα σῖτον καὶ ἄρτον
, x > , ε A a > , > A A ε , προσαγορεύσας, Kat av πάλιν 'Εαυτὸν ἄμπελον ὀνομάσας, Αὐτὸς τὰ ὁρώμενα
’ col ~ Ψ 4 a , , > A , σύμβολα τῇ τοῦ Σώματος καὶ Αἵματος προσηγορίᾳ τετίμηκεν, ov τὴν φύσιν μεταβαλὼν, ἀλλὰ TH φύσει τὴν χάριν προστεθεικώς.
(k) Lbid.—O Κύριος τὸ σύμβολον λαβὼν, οὐκ εἶπε, Τοῦτο ἔστιν ἡ Θεότης Μου, ἀλλὰ, Τοῦτο ἔστι τὸ Σῶμά Μου. καὶ ἑτέρωθι, ὁ δὲ ἄρτος ὃν ᾿Εγὼ δώσω, « , “~ > a > 4 , ε ‘ a ~ , ~ ἡ σάρξ Mod ἐστιν, ἥν ᾿Εγὼ δώσω ὑπὲρ τῆς τοῦ κόσμου ζωῆς.
. , 5 a“ ~
(1) Dialog. 2. p. 84. 0. τὰ μυστικὰ σύμβολα παρὰ τῶν ἱερωμένων τῷ Θεῷ προσφερύμενα τίνων ἐστὶ σύμβολα ; E. τοῦ δεσποτικοῦ Σώματός τε, καὶ Αἵματος.
(m) Ibid. p. 84, 85. E. τί καλεῖς τὸ προσφερόμενον δῶρον πρὸ τῆς ἱερατικῆς ἐπικλήσεως ;---Ο.---τὴν ἐκ τοιῶνδε σπερμάτων τροφὴν. E. τό δε a ΄ a > , \ ‘ a of ΄ ἕτερον σύμβολον πῶς ὀνομάζομεν ; Ο. κοινὸν καὶ τοῦτο ὄνομα, πόματος
> , > , ‘ x ε cy a A ΄ εἶδος σήμαινον᾽ E. Μετά δὲ τὸν ἁγιασμὸν, πῶς ταῦτα προσαγορεύεις ; Ο. Σῶμα Χριστοῦ, καὶ Αἷμα Χριστοῦ. E. Καὶ πιστεύεις ye σώματος Χριστοῦ , a μεταλαμβάνειν, καὶ αἵματος ; O. οὕτω πιστεύω" E. Ὥσπερ τοίνυν τὰ σύμ- ΄- - , ‘ A a »» ’ » A -“ βολα τοῦ δεσποτικοῦ σώματος τὲ καὶ αἵματος ἄλλα μέν εἰσι πρὸ τῆς ἱερατικῆς ἐπικλήσεως, μετά δε γὲ τὴν ἐπίκλησιν μεταβάλλεται, καὶ ἕτερα , μ᾽ “ A X A Ly A 3. κι > ‘ > ’ γίνεται: οὕτω τὸ δεσποτικὸν σῶμα μετὰ τὸν ἀνάληψιν eis τὴν οὐσίαν μετεβλήθη τὴν θείαν Ο. ᾿Εάλως οἷς ὕφῃνες ἄρκυσιν" οὐδὲ γὰρ μετὰ τὸν ΄ 4 ‘ ‘ ’ a " ’ »»} , . ΄ 4 em, ἁγιασμὸν Ta μυστικὰ σύμβολα τῆς οἰκείας ἐξίσταται φύσεως" μένει yap ἐπὶ τῆς προτέρας οὐσίας, καὶ τοῦ σχήματος καὶ τοῦ εἴδους, καὶ ὁρατά ἐστι καὶ “ τ ΄ ἅπτα, οἷα καὶ πρότερον ἦν" νοεῖται δὲ ἅπερ ἐγένετο, καὶ πιστεύεται, καὶ
΄ ΄ ’ προσκυνεῖται, ὡς ἐκεῖνα ὄντα ἅπερ πιστεύεται.
APPENDIX. 47
Avctor ConsTITUTIONUM APOSTOLICARUM.
Ed. Labbe and Cossart.
(a) Lib. ii. cap. 34. p.271. Διὸ τὸν ἐπίσκοπον στέργειν ὀφείλετε ὡς πατέρα, φοβεῖσθαι ws βασιλέα, τιμᾶν ws κύριον, τοὺς καρποὺς ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ ξ, α τῶν ΄ « ΄- > oN , c ~ 4 > ΄- 4 > ‘
py: χειρῶν ὑμῶν εἰς εὐλογίαν ὑμῶν προσφέροντες αὐτῷ τὰς ἀπαρχὰς c ~ ΄ ΄ ΄- ΄- ΄ ΄
ὑμῶν, καὶ τὰς δεκάτας ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ ἀφαιρέματα ὑμῶν καὶ τὰ δῶρα ὑμῶν διδόντες αὐτῷ ὡς ἱερεῖ Θεοῦ, ἀπαρχὴν σίτου, οἴνου, ἐλαίου, ὀπώρας, ἐρέας,
x , 2 , ε ‘ by ~ € - ee c , kal πάντων ὧν Κύριος 6 Θεὸς ἐπιχορηγεῖ ὑμῖν, καὶ ἔσται σοι ἡ προσφορά σου
A > > ‘ ΄ , a = a t δεκτὴ εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας Κυρίῳ τῷ Θεῷ σου---ο. 35. χρὴ δὲ ὑμᾶς γινώσκειν, a > 4 a>¢7 c - 4 ted , ~ > , - 4 ὅτι εἰ Kal ἐῤῥύσατο ὑμᾶς Κύριος τῆς δουλείας τῶν ἐπεισάκτων δεσμῶν, Kal Ly A con > eee fo 4 27 A) Ld ~ \ ¢ ἐξήγαγεν ὑμᾶς εἰς ἀνάψυξιν, μηκέτι ἐάσας ὑμᾶς θύειν ἄλογα ζῶα περὶ ἁμαρ- τιῶν, καὶ καθαρισμοῦ, καὶ ἀποπομπαίων, καὶ λουτρῶν συνεχῶν, καὶ περιῤῥαν-
, > , 4 ~ > ~ c ”~ > ΄ τηρίων, οὐ δήπου καὶ τῶν εἰσφορῶν ὑμᾶς ἐλευθέρωσεν.
(b) Lib. ii. cap. 59. ad calcem, p. 302. Ἔν A (κυριακῇ) προφητῶν > , 4 > , , Α , > ΩΡ A - « ΄ ἀνάγνωσις, καὶ εὐαγγελίου κηρυκία, καὶ θυσίας ἀνάφορα, καὶ τροφῆς ἱερᾶς δωρεὰ.
(bb) Lib. v. c. 18. p. 867. Καὶ ὑμεῖς, ἀναστάντος τοῦ Κυρίου, προσε-
, ‘ , ς “- Pas ca ΄ 27 .e - ΄ - νέγκατε τὴν θυσίαν ὑμῶν περὶ ἧς ὑμῖν διετάξατο δι’ ἡμῶν, λέγων, Τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.
. - > ‘ a
(c) Lib. vi. c. 23. p. 403. ᾿Αντὶ μὲν καθημερινοῦ ἕν μόνον δοὺς βάπ-
τισμα, TO εἰς τὸν Αὐτοῦ θάνατον᾽ ἀντὶ δὲ μιᾶς φυλῆς, ap ἑκάστου ἔθνους
, ‘ ee > € ’΄ ’, κ᾿ » 4 U προστάξας τοὺς ἀρίστους eis ἱερωσύνην προχειρίζεσθαι, καὶ ov Ta σώματα μωμοσκοπεῖσθαι ἀλλὰ θρησκείαν καὶ βίους" ἀντὶ θυσίας τῆς δὶ αἱμάτων, λογικὴν καὶ ἀναίμακτον καὶ τὴν μυστικὴν εἰς τὸν θάνατον τοῦ Κυρίου συμβό- λων χάριν ἐπιτελεῖσθαι, τοῦ σώματος Αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ αἵματος.
(d) Ibid. c. 29. p. 411. (ad Laicos loquitur.) Καὶ τὴν ἀντίτυπον τοῦ
, , a ‘ > , , » a βασιλείου σώματος Χριστοῦ δεκτὴν Εὐχαριστίαν προσφέρετε ἔν τε ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις ὑμῶν, καὶ ἐν τοῖς κοιμητηρίοις, καὶ ἐν ταῖς ἐξόδοις τῶν κεκοιμημένων.
(6) Lib. viii. c. 46. p. 507. Εἰκότως τὸν ἐπηρτημένον κίνδυνον τοῖς τὰ
΄- ΄ ’ ‘ Ἂν τοιαῦτα πράττουσι προειδόμενοι, καὶ τὴν εἰς τὰς θυσίας καὶ εὐχαριστίας
- Φ ’ > - , e ’ ἀμέλειαν ἐκ τοῦ ὑφ᾽ ὧν μὴ χρὴ προσαγομένας ἀσεβῶς, παιδίαν ἡγουμένων ͵ A ’ > ΄ τὴν ἀρχιερατικὴν τιμὴν, ἥτις μίμησιν περιέχει τῆς μεγάλου ᾿Ἀρχιερέως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ βασιλέως ἡμῶν, ἀνάγκην ἔσχομεν καὶ τοῦτο παραινέσαι" ---οὔ
‘ , ,’ ,ὔ ,
τε yap διακόνῳ προσφέρειν θυσίαν θεμιτόν. " > . ἊΝ , “- ΄ > \ ε
(f) Ibid. Pagina proxima. Πρῶτος τοίνυν τῇ φύσει “Apxtepevs ὁ povo-
γενὴς Χριστὸς ovy’ ‘Eavt@ τὴν τιμὴν ἁρπάσας, ἀλλὰ mapa τοῦ Πατρὸς ΄ ‘ ᾿ 4 κατασταθεὶς" ὅς γινόμενος ἄνθρωπος δι’ ἡμᾶς, καὶ τὴν πνευματικὴν θυσίαν
, col - - - ΄ « ΄“ > , προσφέρων τῷ Θεῷ Αὐτοῦ καὶ Πατρὶ mpd τοῦ πάθους, ἡμῖν [ἀποστόλοις] διετάξατο μόνοις τοῦτο ποιεῖν.
(5) Ibid. Μετὰ δὲ τὴν ἀνάληψιν Αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς [οἱ ἀπόστολοι] προσε-
48 APPENDIX.
, A \ /, > a , A ‘ > 7 νέγκοντες κατὰ τὴν διάταξιν Αὐτοῦ θυσίαν καθαρὰν Kat ἀναίμακτον, προεχει-
ρίσαμεθα ἐπισκόπους, καὶ πρεσβυτέρους, καὶ διακόνους, κιτ.λ.
Canones APOSTOLICI. Ed. Labbe and Cossart, 1728.
Can. 3. tom. i. p. 26. Εἴ tis ἐπίσκοπος ἤ πρεσβύτερος παρὰ τὴν ὑπὸ Κυρίου διάταξιν τὴν ἐπὶ τῇ θυσίᾳ, προσενέγκῃ ἕτερά τινα ἐπὶ τὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ θυσιαστήριον, ἢ μέλι, ἤ γάλα, ὡς παρὰ τὴν διάταξιν Κυρίου ποιῶν καθαι- ρείσθω.
Μὴ ἐξὸν δὲ ἔστω προσάγεσθαι τι ἕτερον πρὸς τὸ θυσιαστήριον, πλὴν νέων χίδρων, ἢ στάχυος σίτου, ἢ σταφυλῆς, τῷ καιρῷ τῶ δέοντι κ.τ.λ.
Can. 4. ‘H ἄλλη πᾶσα ὀπώρα εἰς οἶκον ἀποστελλέσθω, ἀπαρχὴ τῷ ἐπι- σκόπῳ καὶ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις, ἀλλὰ μὴ πρὸς θυσιαστήριον᾽ δῆλον δὲ, ὡς ὁ ἐπίσκοπος καὶ οἱ πρεσβύτεροι ἐπιμερίζουσι τοῖς διακόνοις, καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς κληρικοῖς.
Can. 8. Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος, ἢ πρεσβύτερος, ἢ διάκονος, ἢ ἐκ τοῦ καταλόγου τοῦ ἱερατικοῦ, προσφορᾶς γενομένης μὴ μεταλάβοι, τὴν αἰτίαν εἰπάτω" καὶ ἐὰν εὔλογος 7, συγγνώμης τυγχανέτω, εἰ δὲ μὴ λέγει, ἀφοριζέσθω, ὡς αἴτιος βλάβης γενηθεὶς τῷ λαῷ, καὶ ὑπόνοιαν ἐμποιήσας κατὰ τοῦ προσενέγ- καντος, ὡς μὴ ὑγιῶς ἀνενέγκοντος.
Can. 9. p. 37. Πάντας τοὺς εἰσίοντας πιστοὺς, εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐκκλησίαν, καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν γραφῶν ἀκούοντας, μὴ παραμένοντας δὲ τῇ προσ- ευχῆ, καὶ τῇ ἁγίᾳ μεταλήψει, ὡς ἀταξίαν ἐμποιοῦντας τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἀφορί- ζεσθαι χρή.
Can. 45. p. 35. Ἐπίσκοπον, ἢ πρεσβύτερον, ἢ διάκονον αἱρετικῶν δεξα- μένους βάπτισμα, ἢ θυσίαν, καθαιρεῖσθαι προστάσσομεν᾽ τίς yap συμφώνησις
Χριστῷ πρὸς Βελίαλ ; ἢ τίς μέρις πιστῷ μετὰ ἀπίστου ; - t Ὄ Sy, μέρ t fa 3
Dionysi1 ALEXANDRINI. A.D. 947. Ed. Labbe and Cossart.
Canon secundus, tom. i. p. 857. Περί δε τῶν ἐν ἀφέδρῳ γυναικῶν.
τοῦ
3 - ΄ οὐδὲ γὰρ αὐτὰς οἶμαι πιστὰς, οὔσας καὶ εὐλαβεῖς τολμήσειν
᾿ ‘ - a ~ - ΄ τ a A a σώματος καὶ Tov αἵματος Tod Χριστοῦ προσάψασθαι. εἰς δὲ τὰ ἅγια σὰ if , c ‘ , 6, ᾿ ‘ - 7 ’ ΄ r 6n τῶν ἁγίων ὁ μὴ πάντῃ καθαρὸς καὶ ψυχῇ καὶ σώματι, προσιέναι κωλυθή-
σεται.
Concitium Exviseritanum. A.D. 305. Ed. Labbe and Cossart.
Can, 28. p. 995. Episcopos placuit ab eo qui non communicat, munera accipere non debere.
APPENDIX. 49
Can. 29. Energumenus, qui ab erratico spiritu exagitatur — hujus nomen neque ad altare cum oblatione recitandum, neque permit- tendum, ut sua manu in ecclesia ministret.
Concitium ARELATENSE. A.D. 314.
Can. 15. p. 1452. De diaconibus quos cognovimus multis locis offerre, placuit minime fieri debere.
Concitium AncyrANuM. A.D. 815.
- »" Can. 1. p. 1485. Πρεσβυτέρους τοὺς ἐπιθύσαντας ---- τούτους ἔδοξε a” ‘ - - ‘ ‘ ΄ ΄ ΄ 4 > ‘ a τῆς μὲν τιμῆς τῆς κατὰ τὴν καθέδραν μετέχειν, προσφέρειν δὲ αὐτοὺς, ἢ i “- a ΄ -~ ~ ΄ ΄ ὁμιλεῖν, ἢ ὅλως λειτουργεῖν τὶ τῶν ἱερατικῶν λειτουργιῶν, μὴ ἐξεῖναι. Can. 2. δΔιακόνους ὁμοίως θύσαντας --- πεπαῦσθαι δὲ αὐτοὺς τῆς « - ΄“ ΄ , ἱερᾶς λειτουργίας, τῆς Te τοῦ ἄρτον ἢ ποτήριον ἀναφέρειν, ἢ κηρύσσειν. σ ΄- Can. ὅ. Ὅσοι 6¢ — ἔφαγον ---- δακρύοντες, εἰ ἐπλήρωσαν τὸν τῆς G , a , ‘ -~ , Β 3) OR OS ow ὑποπτώσεως τριετῆ χρόνον, χωρὶς προσφορᾶς δεχθήτωσαν᾽ εἰ δὲ μὴ ἔφαγον, ΄, ς - , ΄ δύο ὑποπεσόντες ἔτη, τῷ τρίτῳ κοινωνησάτωσαν χωρὶς προσφορᾶς, ἵνα τὸ τέλειον ἐν τετραετίᾳ λάβωσιν. Can. 6. Περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀπειλῇ μόνον εἰξάντων ---- ἔδοξε μέχρι μεγάλης c ’, > > , = γε ~ , + 4 ‘ ’ ἡμέρας εἰς ἀκρόασιν δεχθῆναι,----καὶ ὑποπεσεῖν τρία ἔτη, καὶ μετὰ ἄλλα δύο -», - ‘ ~ A a ds, = » xv 4 ἔτη, κοινωνῆσαι χωρὶς προσφορᾶς, καὶ οὕτως ἐλθεῖν ἐπὶ τὸ τέλειον. Can. 7. ἜἜδοξε διετίαν ὑποπεσόντας δεχθῆναι᾽ τὸ δὲ εἰ χρὴ μετὰ τῆς προσφορᾶς, ἕκαστον τῶν ἐπισκόπων δοκιμάσαι. Can. 8. Οἱ δὲ δεύτερον καὶ τρίτον θύσαντες μετὰ Bias, τετραετίαν ὑπο- πεσέτωσαν, δύο δὲ ἔ ὶ φορᾶ κοινωνησάτωσαν, καὶ τῷ ἑβδό : ἔτη χωρὶς προσφορᾶς νη - ‘ όμῳ τελείως δεχθήτωσαν. Can. 9. Ὅσοι δὲ ἠνάγκασαν τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς ---- οὗτοι ἔτη μὲν τρία τὸν τῆς ἀκροάσεως δεξάσθωσαν, τόπον, ἐν δὲ ἄλλῃ ἑξαετίᾳ τὸν τῆς ὑποπτώσεως, ΄ a ἄλλον δὲ ἐνιαυτὸν κοινωνησάτωσαν χωρὶς προσφορᾶς, ἵνα τὴν δεκαετίαν πλη- ρώσαντες τοῦ τελείου μετάσχωσιν. ΄ , , Can. 16. Ὅσοι πρὶν εἰκοσαετεῖς γενέσθαι, ἥμαρτον, πέντε καὶ δέκα ΄ “-“ > : = > ἔτεσιν ὑποπεσόντες, κοινωνίας τυγχανέτωσαν τῆς εἰς τὰς προσευχὰς" εἶτα ἐν - ΄» ,’ ΄ - > ΄ τῇ κοίνωνιᾳ διατελέσαντες ἔτη πέντε, τότε καὶ τῆς προσφορᾶς ἐφαπτέσθωσαν. — ὅσοι δὲ ὑπερβάντες τὴν ἡλικίαν ταύτην ---- περιπεπτώκασι τῷ ἅμαρ- ΄ , , ~ τήματι, πέντε καὶ εἴκοσι ἔτη ὑποπεσέτωσαν, Kal κοινωνίας τυγχανέτωσαν τῆς " 9 ΄ > a , ΄ oe: eis Tas προσευχὰς. εἶτα ἐκτελέσαντες πέντε ἔτη ἐν τῆ κοινωνίῳ τῶν εὐχῶν τυγχανέτωσαν τῆς προσφορᾶς. « ΄ , + c , ‘ , »” Can. 24. Oi καταμαντεύομενοι ---- τρία ἔτη ὑποπτώσεως, καὶ δύο ἔτη εὐχῆς χωρὶς προσφορᾶς. Concitium ΝΝΗΕΟΟΞΒΑΆΙΕΝΒΕ. A.D. 315.
Can. 9. p. 1512. πρεσβύτερος, ἐὰν προημαρτηκὼς σώματι προαχθῆ — μὴ προσφερέτω, μένων ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς.
§
50 APPENDIX.
Can. 18. ᾿Επιχώριοι πρεσβύτεροι ἐν τῷ κυριακῷ τῆς πόλεως προσφε- pew οὐ δύνανται.
Can. 14. οἱ δὲ χωρεπίσκοποι προσφέρουσι τιμώμενοι.
Concitium Nicznum (Βουμενιουμ Primum. A.D. 325.
Can. 5. tom. ii. p. 36. Μία μὲν [ σύνοδος γινέσθω πρὸ τῆς τεσσαρα- κοστῆς, ἵνα πάσης μικροψυχίας ἀναιρουμένης, τὸ δῶρον καθαρὸν προσφέρηται τῷ Θεῷ.
cal > >
Can. 11. Περὶ τῶν παραβάντων χωρὶς ἀνάγκης ---- τρία ἔτη ἐν ἀκροω-
΄ , © \ Xe ν ὁ.» ε a δύ δὲ ” x μένοις ποιήσουσιν οἱ πιστοὶ, Kal ἑπτὰ ἔτη ὑποπεσοῦνται, δύο δὲ ἔτη χωρὶς προσφορᾶς κοινωνήσουσι τῷ λαῷ τῶν προσευχῶν.
- , 4 > δε Can. 18. Εἰ τὶς ἐξοδεύοι, τοῦ τελευταίου ---- ἐφοδίου μὴ ἀποστερεῖ- cal ΄ ΄ ΄ ’ - 5» - σθαι" εἰ δὲ πάλιν ἐν τοῖς ζῶσιν ἐξετασθῆ, μετὰ TOY κοινωνούντων τῆς εὐχῆς μόνης ἔστω.
Can. 18, Ἦλθεν εἰς τὴν ἁγίαν καὶ μεγάλην σύνοδον, ὅτι ἐν τίσι τόποις,
΄ ΄ ᾿ > , ε ΄ ΄ Phe - c Σ τοῖς πρεσβυτέροις τὴν εὐχαριστίαν οἱ διάκονοι διδόασιν" ὅπερ οὔτε ὁ κανὼν, οὔτε ἡ συνήθεια παρέδωκε, τοὺς ἐξουσίαν μὴ ἔχοντας προσφέρειν, τοῖς προσ-
¥ ΄ \ ~ “ “ φέρουσι διδόναι τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ.
Concitium GanGrRENSE. A.D. 340.
Can. 4. p. 428. Εἰ ris διακρίνοιτο παρὰ πρεσβυτέρου γεγαμηκότος,
ε A a x , > ~ - λ ΄ > 16 ὡς μὴ χρῆναι, λειτουργήσαντος αὐτοῦ προσφορᾶς μεταλαμβάνειν, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω.
Concitium Laopicenum. A.D. 367.
Can. 14. tom. i. p. 1533. Περὶ τοῦ, μὴ ἅγια εἰς λόγον εὐλογιῶν εἰς ἑτέρας παροικίας διαπέμπεσθαι. ‘ ‘ A , “ -~ > 4, A J , Can. 19. Καὶ pera τὸ πρεσβυτέρους δοῦναι τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ τὴν εἰρήνην, , ‘ - ‘ 4 Tin ¥ ΄ ‘ μή ‘ ele ‘ > τότε τοὺς λαϊκοὺς τὴν εἰρήνην διδόναι, καὶ οὕτω THY ἁγίαν προσφορὰν ἐπι- = ‘ ΄ IF. "- “- ε ~ > ΄ » ι Ud τελεῖσθαι, καὶ μόνοις ἐξὸν εἶναι τοῖς ἱερατικοῖς εἰσιέναι εἰς TO θυσιαστή- ploy, καὶ κοινωνεῖν. Can. 49. Οὐ δεῖ τῇ τεσσαρακοστῇ ἄρτον προσφέρειν, εἰ μὴ ἐν σαββάτῳ καὶ κυριακῇ μόνον. ΄ - γ᾿,
Can. 58. Οὐ δεῖ ἐν τοῖς οἴκοις προσφορὰς γίνεσθαι παρὰ ἐπισκόπων, ἤ πρεσβυτέρων.
Concitium CARTHAGINENSE SECUNDUM, aliter QUINTUM. A.D. 390.
Can. 2. tom. ii. p. 1391. Ut ab omnibus pudicitia custodiatur, qui altari deserviunt.
Can. 4. Si quisquam in periculo fuerit constitutus, et se recon- ciliari divinis altaribus petierit, si episcopus absens fuerit, debet utique presbyter consulere episcopum, &c.
APPENDIX. ol
Can. 8. Si quis forte presbyter ab episcopo suo correptus — putaverit separatim Deo sacrificia offerenda, vel aliud erigendum altare contra ecclesiasticam fidem disciplinamque crediderit, non exeat impunitus — Si quis presbyter a preposito suo excommuni- catus, vel correptus fuerit — [et] superbia inflatus secernendum se ab episcopi sui communione duxerit, ac separatim cum aliquibus schisma faciens sacrificium Dei obtulerit, anathema habeatur, et locum amittat.
Concitium CAaRTHAGINENSE TERTIUM, dliter sExTUM. A.D. 397.
Can. 24. tom. ii. p. 1403. Et in sacramentis corporis et sanguinis Domini nihil amplius offeratur, quam Ipse Dominus tradidit, hoc est, panis et vinum aqua mixtum.
Can. 29. Ut sacramenta altaris non nisi a jejunis hominibus cele- brentur, excepto uno die anniversario, quo cena Domini celebratur. Si episcoporum — defunctorum commendatio facienda est, solis ora- tionibus fiat, si illi qui faciunt jam pransi inveniantur.
Can. 48. Honoratus et Urbanus dixerunt — Verim et de sacri- ficiis inhibendis post prandium, ut a jejunis, sicut dignum est, offe- rantur, et tunc et nunc confirmatum est.
Concitium CarTHAGINENSE QuaARTUM, liter septTIMuM. A.D. 378.
Can. 33. p. 1440. Episcopi vel presbyteri, si causa visitande ecclesiz ad alterius ecclesiam venerint — ad oblationem consecrandam invitentur.
Can. 79. Peenitentes, qui attente leges pcenitentiz exequuntur, si casu in itinere vel in mari mortui fuerint, ubi eis subveniri non possit, memoria eorum et orationibus, et oblationibus commendetur.
Can. 93. Oblationes dissidentium fratrum neque in sacrario neque in gazophylacio recipiautur.
Can. 94. Eorum qui pauperes opprimunt, dona a sacerdotibus refutanda.
Concit, ToLeTanum primum, A.D, 400.
Can. 5. Clericus si ad ecclesiam ad sacrificium quotidianum non accesserit, clericus non habeatur.
Conciz, ConstTanTiInop. 28. CGicum. 8. A.D. 754.
In Actis Concilii Niceni secundi, tom. iii. versus finem, tom. viii. p- 1097. Εὐφρανθήτωσαν, καὶ ἀγαλλιάσθωσαν, kai παῤῥησιαζέσθωσαν οἱ , > lod a “- > , Ψ , ΄- - ‘ ΄- τὴν ἀληθῆ τοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰκόνα εἰλικρινεστάτῃ ψυχῇ ποιοῦντες καὶ ποθοῦντες καὶ σεβόμενοι, καὶ εἰς σωτηρίαν ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος προσφερόμενοι" ἣν Αὐτὸς ὁ Ἱεροτελεστὴς καὶ Θεὸς, τὸ ἡμῶν ἐξ ἡμῶν ὁλικῶς ἀναλαβόμενος
, “- , » ’ φύραμα, κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦ ἑκουσίου πάθους εἰς τύπον καὶ ἀνάμνησιν ἐναρ-
52 APPENDIX.
΄ ΕΣ , cy , γεστάτην τοῖς Αὐτοῦ μύσταις παραδέδωκε. Μέλλων yap Αὑτὸν ἑκουσίως ε Ξ σι > > ἐκδιδόναι τῷ ἀοιδίμῳ καὶ ζωοποιῷ θανάτῳ Αὐτοῦ, λαβὼν τὸν ἄρτον εὐλόγησε, , oi axe >» καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασε, καὶ petadovs etme’ λάβετε, φάγετε εἰς ἄφεσιν - A a ΄ ‘ 53 . ἁμαρτιῶν᾽ Τοῦτό Mov ἔστι τὸ Σῶμα. ὁμοίως Kal TO ποτήριον μεταδοὺς εἶπε a, eas ΝΥ = 3 > Τοῦτό Mov ἔστι τὸ aia’ τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς THY ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν" as οὐκ ἄλλου mW , ~ ~ a 7 » , 4 εἴδους ἐπιλεχθέντος παρ᾽ Αὐτοῦ ἐν τῇ ὑπ᾽ οὐρανὸν, ἢ τύπου, εἰκονίσαι THY - ~ ~ ~ > ~ Αὐτοῦ σάρκωσιν δυναμένου. ᾿Ιδοῦ οὖν ἡ εἰκὼν τοῦ ζωοποιοῦ S@patos Αὐτοῦ, ’ ΄ > ’ ε ἡ ἐντίμως καὶ τετιμημένως πραττομένη. τί γὰρ ἐμηχανήσατο ἐν τούτῳ 6 “Ὁ “- a“ ε “ ΄ πάνσοφος Θεὸς ; οὐχ ἕτερόν τι, ἢ δεῖξαι καὶ τρανῶσαι φανερῶς ἡμῖν τοῖς > , ᾿ \ ΄ > - > 2 4 > ne Doe ἀνθρώποις τὸ πραγματευθὲν μυστήριον ἐν τῇ Kat Αὐτὸν οἰκονομίᾳ ὅτι -“ og , 4 ΄ ὥσπερ ὃ ἐξ ἡμῶν ἀνελάβετο, ὕλη μόνη ἐστὶν ἀνθρωπίνης οὐσίας κατὰ πάντα , “ Η ΄ τελείας, μὴ χαρακτηριζούσης ἰδιοσύστατον πρόσωπον, ἵνα μὴ προσθήκη , > = , ΄ Φ 4 x . ἐδ τῶν Φ' > , προσώπου ἐν τῇ Θεότητι παρεμπέσῃ᾽ οὕτω καὶ τὴν εἰκόνα ὕλην ἐξαίρετον, > , ἤγουν ἄρτου οὐσίαν προσέταξε προσφέρεσθαι, μὴ σχηματίζουσαν ἀνθρώπου “ ~ > \ , a μορφὴν, ἵνα μὴ εἰδωλολατρεία παρεισαχθῆ. ὥσπερ οὖν τὸ κατὰ φύσιν τοῦ a a “ a c eee. Ag Χριστοῦ Σῶμα ἅγιον, ws θεωθὲν" οὕτως δῆλον καὶ τὸ θέσει, ἤτοι ἡ εἰκὼν - ~ “- ‘4 > Αὐτοῦ ἁγία, ὡς διά τινος ἁγιασμοῦ χάριτι θεουμένη. τοῦτο yap Kal ἐπραγ- ΄ » e A , a ματεύσατο, ὡς ἔφημεν, ὁ Δεσπότης Χριστὸς, ὅπως καθάπερ τὴν σάρκα, ἣν ὧν ὼς ~ > , & , ε γεν τα fr olay. "Δ - , ἀνέλαβε, τῷ οἰκείῳ κατὰ φύσιν ἁγιασμῷ ἐξ αὐτῆς ἑνώσεως ἐθέωσεν, ὁμοίως - - - - A A καὶ τὸν τῆς εὐχαριστίας ἄρτον, ὡς ἀψευδῆ εἰκόνα τῆς φυσικῆς σαρκὸς διὰ a a - a > τῆς τοῦ ᾿Αγίου Πνεύματος ἐπιφοιτήσεως ἁγιαζόμενον, θεῖον Σῶμα εὐδόκησε , ~ a - oe ‘ γίνεσθαι, μεσιτεύοντος τοῦ ἐν μετενέξει ἐκ τοῦ κοινοῦ πρὸς TO ἅγιον THY ΄ ’ A 4 ἀναφορὰν ποιουμένου Ἱερέως. Λοιπὸν ἣ κατὰ φύσιν ἔμψυχος καὶ νοερὰ \ a s > , ’ , ε , \ , c , ve σὰρξ Tov Κυρίου ἐχρίσθη, πνεύματι Aylo [τὴν Θεότητα]. ὡσαύτως Καὶ ἢ col - ’ Θεοπαράδοτος εἰκὼν τῆς σαρκὸς Αὐτοῦ, ὁ θείος ἄρτος ἐπληρώθη Πνεύματος ᾿Αγίου σὺν τῷ π᾿ ίῳ τοῦ ζωηφόρου αἵματος τῆς πλευρᾶς Αὐτοῦ. Αὕτη οὖν Ύ Ὁ ποτηρίῳ τοῦ ζωηφόρου αἵματος TH ρ : η a ~ - ma ¢ ~ ἠποδέδεικται ἀψευδὴς εἰκὼν τῆς ἐνσάρκου οἰκονομίας Χριστοῦ Tod Θεοῦ ἡμῶν, ΄“ “- - ἢ καθὼς προλέλεκται" ἣν Αὐτὸς ἡμῖν ὁ ἀληθινὸς τῆς φύσεως Ζωοπλάστης -" , id οἰκειοφώνως παραδέδωκεν.
Lirureta CLementina in Constitutionibus Apostolicis
vulgo dictis.
(a) Lib. viii. cap. 5. tom. i. p. 462. Ads ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί σου, Kap- διογνῶστα Θεὲ, ἐπὶ τὸν δοῦλόν σου τόνδε, ὃν ἐξελέξω εἰς ἐπίσκοπον — ἀρχιερατεύειν σοι ἀμέμπτως λειτουργοῦντα νυκτὸς καὶ ἡμέρας" καὶ ἐξιλασκό- μενόν σου τὸ πρόσωπον, ἐπισυναγαγεῖν τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν σωζομένων, καὶ προσφέρειν σοι τὰ δῶρα τῆς ἁγίας σου ᾿Εκκλησίας. ---- εὐαρέστειν δέ σοι ἐν πραότητι καὶ καθαρᾷ καρδίᾳ, ἀτρέπτως, ἀμέμπτως, ἀνεγκλήτως" προσφέροντά σοι καθαρὰν καὶ ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν, ἣν διὰ Χριστοῦ διετάξω, τὸ μυστήριον τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης ---- Eis τῶν ἐπισκόπων ἀναφερέτω τὴν θυσίαν ἐπὶ τῶν χειρῶν τοῦ χειροτονηθέντος.
(aa) Ibid. cap. 16. Περὶ χειροτονίας πρεσβυτέρων. In oratione
APPENDIX. 53
‘super electum. kai τὰς ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ ἱερουργίας ἀμώμους ἐκτελῇ διὰ Tod Χριστοῦ σου.
(b) Ibid. cap. 10. Δεηθῶμεν --- ὑπὲρ τῶν τὰς θυσίας καὶ τὰς ἀπαρχὰς προσφερόντων Κυρίῳ τῷ Θεῷ ἡμῶν, ὅπως 6 παναγαθὸς Θεὸς ἀμείψηται αὐτοὺς ταῖς ἐπουρανίοις Αὐτοῦ δωρεαῖς.
(ce) Ibid. cap. 12. — ἵν’ εὐθὺς 6 διάκονος λέγῃ" μή τις τῶν κατηχου- μένων" μή τις τῶν ἀκροωμένων" μή τις τῶν ἀπίστων" μή τις τῶν ἑτεροδόξων. — μή Tis κατά Twos’ μή τις ἐν ὑποκρίσει ᾿Ορθοὶ πρὸς Κύριον μετὰ φόβου καὶ τρόμου ἐστῶτες -ὦμεν προσφέρειν. ὧν γενομένων οἱ διάκονοι προσαγέτωσαν τὰ δῶρα τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ πρὸς τὸ θυσιαστήριον. ---- εὐξάμενος οὖν καθ᾽ ἑαυτὸν ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς ἅμα τοῖς ἱερεῦσι, καὶ λαμπρὰν ἐσθῆτα μετεν- δὺς, καὶ στὰς πρὸς τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ --- εἰπάτω" ἡ χάρις τοῦ παντοκράτορος Θεοῦ, καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Κυρίου, k.T.A’. ---- καὶ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς" Ανω τὸν νοῦν"
4 ΄ ο 5; ‘ ‘ , Lis ee) % > , - καὶ πᾶντες᾽ Εχομεν πρὸς τὸν Κυριον. και ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς, Ἑυχαριστήσωμεν τῷ Κυρίῳ" καὶ πάντες" Αξιον καὶ δίκαιον" καὶ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς εἰπάτω, Αξιον ὡς > ~ A , A ’ > -~ A 5 cA ‘ ἀληθῶς καὶ δίκαιον mpd πάντων ἀνυμνεῖν σε τὸν ὄντως ὄντα Θεὸν, K.T.X. The bishop proceeds to acknowledge God as the First Cause and Author of all things, and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, as Maker and Governor of angels and men, and all creatures; and to rehearse the history of all the great providences from the creation of Adam down to the delivery of the people of Israel from the Egyptian bondage, and ends with the words of the prophet Daniel, chap. vii. ver. 10. a , , > Ν , , > >
, ἅμα χιλίαις χιλιάσιν ἀρχαγγέλων, καὶ μυρίαις μυριάσιν ἀγγέλων ἀκατα-
΄ As , , a κ a ε \ o 7 + ae o παύστως καὶ ἀσιγήτως βοώσαις" καὶ πᾶς 6 λαὸς ἅμα εἰπάτω" ἽΑγιος, ἅγιος, ἅγιος Κύριος σαβαὼθ. καὶ ὁ ἀρχιερεὺς ἑξῆς λεγέτω" ἽΑγιος γὰρ εἶ ὡς ἀληθῶς, καὶ πανάγιος" --- ἅγιός δὲ καὶ ὁ μονογενὴς σοῦ "Υἱὸς, κιτιλ. He recites our Saviour’s incarnation, miracles, death, resurrection, and ascension ; and adds, Μεμνημένοι οὖν ὧν δι’ ἡμᾶς ὑπέμεινεν, εὐχαριστοῦμεν cor —
Ἔν ἣ γὰρ νυκτὶ παρεδίδοτο λαβὼν
καὶ τὴν διάταξιν Αὐτοῦ πληροῦμεν. ΕΣ ε ΄ > A , , > ” ν ὑδ ἄρτον ---- ὡσαύτως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον κεράσας ἐξ οἴνου καὶ ὕδατος, K.T.A. AS in the institution: and then proceeds, Μεμνημένοι τοίνυν τοῦ πάθους “ ~ a ~ x a Αὐτοῦ, καὶ τοῦ θανάτου, καὶ τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν ἀναστάσεως, καὶ τῆς εἰς οὐρανοὺς ΄ ΄ - ͵ ΄ , - ἐπανόδου, καὶ τῆς μελλούσης Αὐτοῦ δευτέρας παρουσίας, προσφέρομέν σοι τῷ ΄“ ΄“- - ~ , βασιλεῖ καὶ Θεῷ κατὰ τὴν Αὐτοῦ διάταξιν τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον καὶ τὸ ποτήριον = > - > > a 249 = , oe ε ΄ τοῦτο, εὐχαριστοῦντες σοι δι Αὐτοῦ, ἐφ᾽ οἷς κατηξίωσας ἡμᾶς ἑστάναι Si Ag. , we 7 o ‘ > - a > - > ¢ ἐνώπιόν σου, Kal ἱερατεύειν got" καὶ ἀξιοῦμεν σε, ὅπως εὐμενῶς ἐπιβλέψης Θεὲ τας Ἁ , ~ a pea ὦ , ‘ id > ‘ . Ὁ" ν > ἐπὶ Ta προκείμενα δῶρα ταῦτα ἐνώπιόν gov, σὺ ὁ avevdens Θεὸς" Kai εὐδο- , 33 pad γᾶς > ‘ -~ - > ‘ ΄ .σ , κήσῃς ἐπ᾿ αὐτοῖς εἰς τιμὴν TOU Χριστοῦ σου" καὶ καταπέμψης τὸ “Αγιόν σου .“- >, vv ‘ ἐς ’ A , - , - , Πνεῦμα ἐπὶ τὴν θυσίαν ταύτην τὸν Μάρτυρα τῶν παθημάτων τοῦ Κυρίου > “- if > “4 ‘ oA ee ~ “τ, - ‘ ‘ Ingov, ὅπως ἀποφήνῃ τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτόν σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου, καὶ τὸ , « e a a aie ε , > a ποτήριον τοῦτο αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ Gov" iva οἱ μεταλαβόντες αὐτοῦ βεβαιω- θῶ ‘ Cle. > , ε ᾿ ΄ a ‘ “ ὥσι πρὸς εὐσέβειαν, ἀφέσεως ἁμαρτημάτων τύχωσι, τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τῆς
πλάνης αὐτοῦ ῥυσθῶσι, Τινεύματος ᾿Αγίου πληρωθῶσιν, ἄξιοι τοῦ Χριστοῦ
54 APPENDIX.
΄ a > , , a ΄ > ns , σου γένωνται, ζωῆς αἰωνίου τύχωσι, σοῦ καταλλαγέντος αὐτοῖς, Δεσπότα ΄ o Ὁ , , ἢ» A ©. ‘ a (me , , παντοκράτορ᾽ ἔτι δεόμεθά σου, Κύριε, καὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς ἁγίας σου ᾿Εκκλησίας - ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐμῆς τοῦ προσφέροντός σοι οὐδενίας" καὶ ὑπὲρ παντὸς τοῦ , ε ‘ ~ , x ‘ , c 4 a“ πρεσβυτερίου, ὑπὲρ τῶν διακόνων καὶ παντὸς κλήρου --- ὑπὲρ τοῦ βασι- ΄ ‘ κα Soe a »” , ΄ % Gea ΄ n Cpe λέως καὶ τῶν ἐν ὑπεροχῆ — ἔτι προσφέρομέν σοι Kal ὑπὲρ πάντων τῶν ar μὰ , a ἘΞ αἰῶνος εὐαρεστησάντων σοι ἁγίων, πατριαρχῶν, προφητῶν, K.T.’. — ἔτι , , ir oh a A ΄ - "4 pee δ 4 ἢν De a προσφέρομέν σοι ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου --- ἔτι ἀξιοῦμέν σε καὶ ὑπὲρ τῆς
’ 2, “ ’ ε ΄ , - πόλεως ταύτης --- ἔτι παρακαλοῦμέν σε ὑπὲρ τῶν μισούντων ἡμᾶς --- ὑπὲρ
- ε 4 ΄ ’ c ~ τῶν κατηχουμένων --- ὑπὲρ τῶν χειμαζομένων ὑπὸ τοῦ ἀλλοτρίου, καὶ ὑπὲρ ἘΞ ΄ ΄ εὐτὺς a ~ τῶν ἐν μετανοίᾳ --- ἔτι προσφέρομέν σοι ὑπὲρ εὐκρασίας τοῦ ἀέρος, Kal τῆς > , - ae »” ae. ἃ pe a > », εὐφορίας τῶν καρπῶν" — ἔτι παρακαλοῦμέν σε καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν δ εὔλογον
Sa 7. > , ‘ e , , , αἰτίαν ἀπόντων ---- καὶ ὁ διάκονος κηρυσσέτω πάλιν. (4) Lbid. cap. 18. ἔτι καὶ ἔτι δεηθῶμεν τοῦ Θεοῦ διὰ τοῦ Χριστοῦ Αὐτοῦ eX a , A ΄ , a ~ Γ᾽ > ‘ ὑπὲρ Tod δώρου τοῦ προσκομισθέντος Κυρίῳ τῷ Θεῷ᾽ ὅπως 6 ἀγαθὸς Θεὸς , > ‘ ‘ iste) , ΄“ ~ > ~ > XL > , προσδέξηται αὐτὸ διὰ τῆς μεσιτείας τοῦ Χριστοῦ Αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ ἐπουράνιον ἀνε χε ΄ > > ‘ > ΒΟΥ Pos - > , ΄ Η Αὐτοῦ θυσιαστήριον εἰς ὀσμὴν εὐωδίας" ὑπὲρ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ταύτης, καὶ ~ - - . ce A , > = , ε > , τοῦ λαοῦ δεηθῶμεν' ὑπὲρ πάσης ἐπισκοπῆς, K.T.A. — Kal ὁ ἐπίσκοπος > , > c -“ 4 ~ εἰπάτω, ὁ Θεὸς ὁ μέγας — ἐπίβλεψον ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς --- καὶ ἁγιάσας ἡμῶν ΄- ‘ ¢ > τὸ σῶμα καὶ τὴν ψυχὴν, καταξίωσον καθαροὺς γενομένους ἀπὸ παντὸς po- - ’ ΄“ ΄ , > -“ , λυσμοῦ σαρκὸς Kal πνεύματος τυχεῖν τῶν προκειμένων ἀγαθῶν, Kal μηδένα ἡμῶν ἀνάξιον κρίνῃς --- καὶ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος προσφωνησάτῳ τῷ λαῷ οὕτω" 41: ρινῃς = ἦτ ie bee τά f = “ ΄ ᾿ ΘΝ 2 , e > a Ta ἅγια τοῖς ἁγίοις" καὶ ὁ λαὸς ὑπακουέτω᾽ Eis “Aytos, εἷς Κύριος, ets ᾿Ιησοῦς col . A “- ca Χριστὸς. --- ‘Qoavva ἐν τοῖς ὑψίστοις" καὶ μετὰ τοῦτο μεταλαμβανέτω 6 » , . + « , 4 c , A , na ε A ἐπίσκοπος" ἔπειτα οἱ πρεσβύτεροι, Kal οἱ διάκονοι ---- καὶ τότε πᾶς 6 λαὸς - cus ? . κατὰ τάξιν μετὰ αἰδοῦς καὶ εὐλαβείας ἃ ἄνευ θορύβου" καὶ 6 μὲν ἐπίσκοπος διδότω τὴν προσφορὰν, λέγων, Σῶμα Χριστοῦ" καὶ ὁ δεχόμενος λεγέτω, > 4 05 , ars ι , 2 Αμὴν᾽ ὁ δὲ διάκονος κατεχέτω τὸ ποτήριον, Kat ἐπιδιδοὺς λέγετω, Αἷμα Χ = , et Ne , Ne ΄ a ΄ ". Ψ' ΄ ριστοῦ ποτήριον ζωῆς" καὶ ὁ πίνων λεγέτω, ᾿Αμήν. --- καὶ ὅταν πάντες , A , , ε ΄ 4 , > ’ μεταλάβωσι καὶ πάσαι, λαβόντες οἱ διάκονοι τὰ περισσεύσαντα εἰσφερέτωσαν
εἰς τὰ παστοφόρια pla.
Lirurera 5. Jacosi, ex Biblioth. Patrum. Tom. ii. Edit. Parisiis, 1624.
(a) P. 1. Sacerdos ait pro mensa propositionis, οὐκ εἶμι ἄξιος ἀντοφ- θαλμῆσαι τῇ ἱερᾷ σοῦ ταύτῃ καὶ πνευματικῇ τραπέζῃ.
(0) P. 7. Sacerdos adferens dona dicit, Ὃ Θεὸς --- εὐλόγησον τὴν πρόθεσιν ταύτην, καὶ πρόσδεξαι αὐτὴν εἰς τὸ ὑπερουράνιόν σου θυσια- στήριον.
(c) P. 10, Sacerdos in transitu a mensa propositionis versus altare dicit, Δεσπότα Κύριε, καὶ χαρισάμενος παῤῥησίαν ἡμῖν ---- προσφέρειν σοι
4 Lib. ii. cap. 57. p. 297. These 5ἴοῃ, and the following words are added, very words are used on the same occa- ὡς βασιλέως προσερχόμενοι σώματι.
APPENDIX. δῦ
τὴν φοβερὰν ταύτην καὶ ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἁμαρτημάτων, καὶ τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ ἀγνοημάτων --- εὐδόκησον δεκτὰ γίνεσθαι τὰ προσαγόμενα ταῦτα δῶρα διὰ τῶν ἡμετέρων χειρῶν.
(4) P. 11. — ἵνα ἄξιοι γενώμεθα τοῦ προσφέρειν σοι δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας ὑπέρ τε ἑαυτῶν, καὶ τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ ἀγνοημάτων --- καὶ δὸς ἡμῖν, Κύριε, μετὰ παντὸς φόβου ---- προσκομίσαι σοι τὴν πνευματικὴν ταύτην καὶ ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν, ἣν προσδεξάμενος εἰς τὸ ὑπερουράνιόν --- σου θυσιαστήριον --- ἀντικατάπεμψον ἡμῖν τὴν χάριν τοῦ παναγίου σου Πνεύματος --- πρόσδεξαι καὶ ἐκ χειρῶν ἡμῶν τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν τὰ προκείμενα δῶρα ταῦτα --- εἰς ἐξί- λασμα τῶν ἡμετέρων πλημμελημάτων καὶ τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ ἀγνοημάτων, καὶ εἰς ἀνάπαυσιν τῶν προκεκοιμημένων Ψυχῶν.
(6) Ibid. Εὐχὴ τοῦ καταπετάσματος. When the priest enters within the veil. Evxaptotrotpey σοι, Κύριε ὁ Θεὸς ---- ὅτε ἔδωκας ἡμῖν παῤῥησίαν εἰς THY εἴσοδον τῶν ἁγίων σου ἣν ἐνεκαίνισας ἡμῖν ὁδὸν, k.t.A. aS Heb. x. 19 —22.
(ἢ P. 12. ‘O διάκονος. ---- πρόσχωμεν τῇ ἁγίᾳ ἀναφορᾷ.
P. 13. Sacerdos recitat verba institutionis primo super panem, usque ad verba, ἔδωκεν ἡμῖν τοῖς Αὐτοῦ μαθηταῖς καὶ ἀποστόλοις, deinde λέγου- σιν οἱ διάκονοι. Eis ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, καὶ εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. Eira ἐκφωνεῖ [ἱερεὺς]. Λάβετε, φάγετε, κ.τ.λ.
(6) Inter verba institutionis, λαβών τὸ ποτήριον, καὶ κεράσας ἐξ οἴνου καὶ ὕδατος --- εὐχαριστήσας, ἁγιάσας, πλήσας Πνεύματος ‘Ayiov. — Post verba institutionis, addit sacerdos, Μέμνήμενοι οὖν καὶ ἡμεῖς οἱ ἁμαρτω- λοὶ τῶν ζωοποιῶν Αὐτοῦ παθημάτων ---- προσφέρομέν σοι, Δεσπότα, τὴν φοβερὰν ταύτην καὶ ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν, δεόμενοι, ἵνα «.τ.ιλ. Deprecatur peccatorum merita.
(h) Καὶ ἐξαπόστειλον ἔφ᾽ ἡμᾶς, καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ προκείμενα δῶρα ταῦτα τὸ Πνεῦμά σου τὸ πανάγιον --- P. 15. Αὐτὸ τὸ Πνεῦμά σου τὸ πανάγιον κατάπεμψον, Δεσπότα, ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς, καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ προκείμενα ἅγια δῶρα ταῦτα --- ἵνα ποιήσῃ τὸν μὲν ἄρτον τοῦτον, σῶμα ἅγιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ gov" καὶ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο, αἷμα τίμιον τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου.
(i) P. 17. Diaconus loquitur, Ἔτι καὶ ἔτι δεηθῶμεν ὑπὲρ τῶν προσκο- μισθέντων καὶ ἁγιασθέντων ---- θείων δώρων ---- ὅπως Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν προσδεξάμενος αὐτὰ εἰς τὸ ὑπερουράνιον θυσιαστήριον, ---- ἀντικαταπέμψῃ
ς - A ‘ “- , ΄ ἡμῖν ---- τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ παναγίου Πνεύματος.
Lirureia 5. Marct, ex Biblioth. Patrum, mox post
Liturgiam 8. Jacobi.
(a) In Prothesi, p. 32. ᾿Επίφανον τὸ πρόσωπόν Σου ἐπὶ τὸν ἄρτον τοῦ- τον, καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ ποτήρια ταύτα.
(0) Ibid. ‘O ἱερεὺς ἄρχεται τῆς ἀναφορᾶς. ᾿Αληθῶς γὰρ ἄξιόν ἐστι καὶ δίκαιον ---- δι’ οὗ (Χριστοῦ) Σοὶ σὺν Αὐτῷ, καὶ ᾿Αγίῳ Πνεύματι, εὐχαριστοῦντες
56 APPENDIX,
, ‘ \ aS , , , a ΄ προσφέρομεν τὴν λογικὴν καὶ ἀναίμακτον λατρείαν ταύτην, ἣν προσφέρει σοι, Κύριε, πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, κιτ.λ. aS Mal.i. 10,11. — P. 35. τὰ εὐχαριστήρια
, c ‘ 3 γα. > ye , A , , πρόσδεξαι, ὁ Θεὸς, εἰς TO ἅγιον, καὶ ἐπουράνιον, καὶ νοερόν σου θυσιαστήριον ---- τῶν τὸ πολὺ καὶ ὀλίγον, κρύφα, καὶ παῤῥησίᾳ βουλομένων, καὶ οὐκ ἐχόντων" καὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ σήμερον ἡμέρᾳ τὰς προσφορὰς προσενεγκάντων, ὡς προσεδέξω τὰ δῶρα τοῦ δικαίου σου ᾿Αβέλ.
(c) Ρ. 86, πλήρης γάρ ἐστιν ὡς ἀληθῶς ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῇ τῆς ἁγίας
΄, ΄ ς 5 \ , \ 6 , = \ > σου δόξης ----πλήρωσον, ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ ταύτην THY θυσίαν τῆς παρὰ σου εὖλο- ~ ΄- * yias διὰ τῆς ἐπιφοιτήσεως τοῦ Tavayiov σου Πνεύματος --- Deinde, p. 37, sacerdos profert verba institutionis. Inter verba institutionis, καὶ τὸ
, x \ - ‘ x ΄ > i ‘ ὕδ 3 ποτήριον μετὰ τὸ δειπνῆσαι λαβὼν, καὶ κεράσας ἐξ οἶνου καὶ ὕδατος, εὐχαρι- στήσας, εὐλογήσας, πλῆσας Πνεύματος ᾿Αγίου, τὸν θάνατον, Δεσπότα Κύριε ---
~ -“ « ~ A > , 4 > , τοῦ μονογενοῦς σου Ὑιοῦ ----καταγγέλλοντες ---καὶ ἀνάστασιν — καὶ ἀνάληψιν ‘ ‘ , > ~ , Ἁ ‘ > ~ ΄“ , ΄ —kal τὴν δευτέραν Αὐτοῦ παρουσίαν ----τὰ σὰ ἐκ τῶν σῶν δώρων προεθή- > Fs ΄ fs 4 ΄ > , Η͂ ALG ‘ καμεν ἐνώπιόν σου καὶ δεόμεθα ---- ἐξαπόστειλον ---- τὸ Πνεῦμά σου τὸ “ a ~ PES | ες , ‘ , ᾿ , 4 ‘ » - Ἅγιον, ἵνα αὐτὰ ἁγιάσῃ καὶ τελειώσῃ ---καὶ ποίησῃ τὸν μὲν ἄρτον Σῶμα ---
τὸ δὲ ποτήριον Αἷμα τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης Αὐτοῦ τοῦ Κυρίου. x.T.A.
Liturera 85. Βάβιμμι M. ex Biblioth. Patrum. Tom. ii.
Edit. Paris. 1624. mox post Lirureram S. Marci.
(a) P. 42. In Oratione propositionis. EtAdéynoov τὴν πρόθεσιν ταύ- την, καὶ πρόσδεξαι αὐτὴν εἰς TO ὑπερουράνιόν σου θυσιαστήριον.
(0) P. 46. Εὐχὴ πιστῶν πρώτη, ἣν 6 ἱερεὺς λέγει μυστικῶς --- Σὺ, [Κύριε] ἱκάνωσον ἡμᾶς ---- ἵνα ἀκατακρίτως προσάγωμέν σοι θυσίαν αἰνέσεως" σὺ γὰρ εἶ ὁ ἐνεργῶν τὰ πάντα ἐν Tact’ δὸς, Κύριε, καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἁμαρτημάτων, καὶ τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ ἀγνοημάτων, δεκτὴν γενέσθαι τὴν θυσίαν ἡμῶν. ἷ
(c) P. 46, 47. Εὐχὴ ἥν λέγει ὁ ἱερεὺς μυστικῷς, καὶ ἄχραντον τοῦ Χερου- βικοῦ ἀδομένου ---- Βασιλεῦ τῆς δόξης ---- ἱκάνωσόν με ---- ἱερουργῆσαι τὸ ἅγιόν σου Σῶμα, καὶ τίμιον Αἷμα----ἀξίωσον προσενεχθῆναι σοι ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ ἁμαρτωλοῦ — ra δῶρα ταῦτα" Σὺ γὰρ εἶ ὁ προσφέρων, καὶ ὁ προσφερόμενος, καὶ προσ- δεχόμενος, καὶ διαδιδόμενος.
(4) P. 47. Εὐχὴ προσκομιδῆ.-ς----πΠρόσδεξαι ἡμᾶς, ἵνα γινώμεθα ἄξιοι τοῦ προσφέρειν σοι τὴν λογικὴν ταύτην καὶ ἀναίμακτον θυσίαν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἁμαρτημάτων, καὶ τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ ἀγνοημάτων᾽ ἣν προσδεξάμενος εἰς τὸν ἅγιον καὶ νοερόν σου θυσιαστήριον, ἀντικατάπεμψον ἡμῖν τὴν χάριν τοῦ ᾿Αγίου σοῦ Πνεύματος.
(e) Ρ. 84. Στῶμεν μετὰ φόβου, πρόσχωμεν τὴν ἁγίαν ἀναφορὰν ἐν εἰρήνῃ προσφέρειν.
(Ὁ P. 50, 51. Incipit recitare verba institutionis, usque ad verba λαβὼν ἄρτον ---- εὐχαριστήσας, κλάσας, deinde ὁ ἱερεὺς ---- αἴρων τὴν δεξιὰν
αὑτοῦ ---- εὐλογεῖ Tov ἅγιον ἄρτον, ἐκφώνως λέγων ἴΕδωκε τοῖς ἁγίοις
APPENDIX. δ
Αὐτοῦ μαθηταῖς “---- εἰπὼν, λάβετε, φάγετε, τοῦτό Μου ἐστὶ τὸ Σῶμα. Idem facit super poculum in hee verba, “Ὁμοίως καὶ τὸ ποτήριον ἐκ τοῦ γεννήματος τοῦ ἀμπέλου λαβὼν, κεράσας, εὐχαριστήσας, κιτ.λ. Deinde Μεμ- νημένοι οὖν, Δεσπότα, καὶ ἡμεῖς τῶν σωτηρίων Αὐτοῦ παθημάτων ---- ἀναστά- σεως --- αἰς οὐρανοὺς ἀνόδου ---- καὶ φοβερᾶς Αὐτοῦ παρουσίας (ἐκφώνως ὁ © ‘ " 1 > a a“ , ims x , ‘ x ΄ ε ἱερεὺς) Τὰ σὰ ἐκ τῶν σῶν σοι προσφέροντες, κατὰ πάντα καὶ διὰ πάντα (ὁ χορὸς ψάλλει τὸ) Σὲ ὑμνοῦμεν, σὲ εὐλογοῦμεν, σοὶ εὐχαριστοῦμεν---- κιτ.λ.
(6) Ibid. Ὃ ἱερεὺς ---- εὔχεται. Δεσπότα πανάγιε ---- προσεγγίζομεν τῷ ἁγίῳ σου θυσιαστηρίῳ, καὶ προσθέντες τὰ ἀντίτυπα τοῦ ᾿Αγίου Σώματος καὶ Αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου, σοῦ δεόμεθα ---- ἐλθεῖν τὸ Πνεῦμά σου τὸ σ ἌΣ | Pe Lee sae \ , ~ “- ‘ > “ Cre ‘ Ay.ov ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς, καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ προκείμενα δῶρα ταῦτα, καὶ εὐλογῆσαι αὐτὰ, καὶ ἁγιάσαι, καὶ ἀναδεῖξαι --- τόν μεν ἄρτον τοῦτον αὐτὸ τὸ τίμιον Σῶμα τοῦ
> a “ ‘ ‘ , = «ε s¢ ‘ > ΄- -- [ησοῦ Χριστοῦ ---- καὶ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο κιτιλ. Ὃ δὲ ἱερεὺς εὐλογῶν μετὰ τῆς χειρὸς ἀμφότερα τὰ ἅγια, λέγει Μεταβαλὼν τῶ Πνεύματί σου τῶ « ΄ Δγίῳ.
(8) P. 52. Ὃ ἱερεὺς ἐπεύχεται --- Ἡμᾶς δὲ πάντας τοὺς ἐκ τοῦ ἑνὸς ἄρτου καὶ τοῦ ποτηρίου μετέχοντας, ἑνῶσαι ἀλλήλοις ---- καὶ μηδένα ἡμῶν εἰς κρίμα ἢ εἰς κατάκριμα ποιῆσαι μετασχεῖν τοῦ ᾿Αγίου Σώματος καὶ Αἵμα- τος τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου. Deinde post quasdam laudes et preces pro populo communicaturo, pergit sacerdos ut in Liturgia Chrysostomi.
Liturgia 5. Joannis Curysostomi. Ex Biblioth. predict. mox post Liturgiam S. Basixi1.
(a) P. 64. Εὐχὴ προθέσεως. Ὁ Θεὸς, εὐλόγησον τὴν πρόθεσιν ταύτην, καὶ πρόσδεξαι αὐτὴν εἰς τὸ ὑπερουράνιόν σου θυσιαστήριον᾽ ---- μνημόνευσον ---- προσενεγκάντων, καὶ δι’ οὕς προσήγαγον.
(0) P. 73. Εὐχὴ ἣν λέγει ὁ ἱερεὺς μυστικῶς τοῦ Χερουβικοῦ ἀδομένου" — ἱκάνωσον ---- μὲ παραστῆναι τῇ ἁγίᾳ σου ταύτῃ τραπέζῃ, καὶ ἱερουργῆ- σαι τὸ “Αγιόν --- σου Σῶμα, καὶ τὸ Τίμιόν σου Αἷμα" ἀξίωσον προσενεχθῆ- ναι σοι ὑπ᾽ ἐμοῦ ---- τὰ δῶρα ταῦτα Σὺ γὰρ εἶ ὁ προσφέρων καὶ ὁ προσ- φερόμενος, x. τ. A. ut supra in Liturgia S. Basilii.
(c) P. 76. Εὐχὴ προσκομιδῆς --- “Ikdvwcoy ἡμᾶς προσενέγκειν σοι δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίας πνευματικὰς ὑπὲρ τῶν ἡμετέρων ἁμαρτήματων, καὶ τῶν τοῦ λαοῦ ἀγνοημάτων᾽ καὶ καταξίωσον ἐπισκηνῶσαι τὸ Πνεῦμα τῆς χάριτος σοῦ τὸ ᾿Αγαθὸν ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς, καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ προκείμενα δῶρα, καὶ ἐπὶ πάντα τὸν λαόν σου.
(4) P.77—79. ‘O Διάκονος λέγει ἐκφώνως, Στῶμεν μετὰ φοβόυ,
τ . ‘ 4 πρόσχωμεν τὴν ἁγίαν ἀναφορὰν ἐν εἰρήνῃ προσφέρειν" καὶ ἱερεὺς, ΓΑξιον καὶ;
δίκαιον ---- εἴ sic pergit verba Institutionis proferre ut supra in Liturgia S. Basilii, et per eadem verba dicitur εὐλογεῖν τὸν ἄρτον, καὶ τὸ ποτή- ριον.
Deinde Μεμνημένοι τοίνυν τῆς σωτηρίου ταύτης ἐντολῆς, καὶ ---- τοῦ
h
58 APPENDIX.
σταυροῦ, τοῦ τάφου --- ἀναστάσεως, kK. τ. A. Τὰ σὰ ἐκ TOY σῶν σοι προσ- φέρομεν ---- ὁ χορὸς, Σὲ ὑμνοῦμεν, σὲ εὐλογοῦμεν, κι τ. Χ. Deinde Ἔτι προσφέρομών ---- (inquit sacerdos) σοι τὴν λογικὴν ταύτην καὶ ἀναίμακτον λατρείαν, καὶ παρακαλοῦμεν ---- κατάπεμψον τὸ Πνεῦμά σου τὸ ἽΑγιον ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ προκείμενα δῶρα ταῦτα. Et ποίησον τὸν μὲν ἄρτον τοῦτον," Τίμιον Σῶμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ, --- τὸ δὲ ἐν τῷ ποτηρίῳ τούτῳ, Τίμιον Αἷμα τοῦ Χριστοῦ ---- μεταβαλὼν τῷ Πνεύματι σοῦ τῷ ‘Ayia — ὥστε γενέσθαι τοῖς μεταλαμβάνουσιν εἰς νῖψιν ψυχῆς, εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, εἰς κοινωνίαν τοῦ ἑΑγίου Πνεύματος, εἰς βασιλείας οὐρανῶν πλήρωμα.
(6) Ῥ. 80. Ἔτι προσφέρομέν σοι τὴν λογικὴν ταύτην λατρείαν ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐν πίστει ἀναπαυομένων προπατόρων, πατέρων, πατριαρχῶν, K. τ. ἃ.
(Ὁ P. 81. Ὑπὲρ τῶν ---- τιμίων δώρων, τοῦ Κυρίου δεηθῶμεν ---- ὅπως ὁ Θεὸς, ὁ προσδεξάμενος αὐτὰ εἰς ὑπερουράνιον Αὐτοῦ θυσιαστήριον ἀντικαταπέμψῃ ἡμῖν --- τὴν. δωρεὰν τοῦ Παναγίου Πνεύματος ---- hee diaconus.
(g) P. 83. Adros, Δεσπότα, οὐρανόθεν ἔπιδε ἐπὶ τοὺς ὑποκεκλικότας σοι τὰς ἑαυτῶν κεφαλὰς" οὐ γὰρ ἔκλιναν σαρκὶ καὶ αἵματι, ἀλλά σοι τῷ φοβερῷ
Θεῷ.
Liturgia S. Perri, ex Biblioth. predict. mox post Liturg. 5. Curysostomt.
(a) P. 116. Εὐχὴ προθέσεως --- [Ἔπιδε ἐφ᾽ ἡμᾶς, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸν ἄρτον τοῦτον, καὶ ἐπὶ τὸ ποτήριον τοῦτο, καὶ ποίησον αὐτὸ ἄχραντόν σου Σῶμα, καὶ Τίμιον Αἷμα εἰς μετάληψιν ψυχῶν τε, καὶ σωμάτων. P. 118. Θυσίαν,
7 , Lid Ne A c , Ν > p Tet aN ¢ - > ͵ Κύριέ, σοι πρδορισθείσαν προσφορὰν ἁγίασον, καὶ dv αὐτῆς ἡμᾶς ἀσμένως πρόσδεξαι διὰ τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ, κ. τ. Χ. Sursum corda, Trisagium,
(b) P. 119. Σὲ τοίνυν, ἐπιεικέστατε Πάτερ, --- δεόμεθα, iva προσδεκ- ταῖα σχῆς, καὶ εὐλογήσῃς ταῦτα τὰ δῶρα, ταύτην τὴν προσφορὰν, ταύτην τὴν ἁγίαν θυσίαν ---- ἅπερ σοι προσφέρομεν ὑπὲρ τῆς ᾿Αγίας σου Καθολικῆς καὶ ᾿Αποστολικῆς ᾿Εκκλησίας ---- ἅμα τῷ δούλῳ σου τῷ πάπᾳ, κιτ.Χ. Deinde, ταύτην τοίνυν τὴν προσφορὰν ---- προσδεκταῖαν ποιῆσαι καταξιώσῃς, ἵνα con - ‘ 2 , 2 a a \ = ey. a ἡμῖν Σῶμα καὶ Αἷμα yeyvntat — Inoov Χριστοῦ, os πρὸ μιᾶς ἡμέρας τοῦ πάθους Αὐτοῦ λαβὼν ἄρτον, κιτιλ. Recitat verba Institutionis, deinde.
(c) P. 121. Μνημονεύοντες, Κύριε, ἡμεῖς ---- τοῦ Χριστοῦ σου ---
/ > ¢ > 4 ‘A A > ΄“ ’ ε πάθους --- ἐγέρσεως ---- ἀναβάσεως, τὰ σὰ ἐκ τῶν σοι προσφέροντες (6 λαὸς) Σὲ ὑμνοῦμεν, σὲ εὐλογοῦμεν. Ὃ ἱερεὺς ἐπεύχεται repetens verba,
ν \ , BY ΄ Cee , 2 Bd iss δα
τὰ σὰ K.T.A. Θυσίαν καθαρὰν, θυσίαν ἁγίαν, θυσίαν ἄμωμον, ἄρτον ἅγιον ζωῆς oo o
αἰωνίου, καὶ ποτήριον σωτηρίας ἀεννάου" ὑπὲρ ὧν ἵλεῳ kal εὐϊλάτῳ προσώπῳ
ἘΣ ΄ , ‘ A - \ , \ a a
ἐπισκέψαι καταξιώσῃης, καὶ προσδεκτὰ σχεῖν, καθὰ κατηξίωσας τὰ δῶρα τοῦ
- ᾿Αβὲλ, καὶ τὴν θυσίαν rod — ᾿Αβραάμ' καὶ ὥσπερ σοι προσήγαγεν 6
a « , ‘ ἘΠ , Bcd \ « , πρῶτος ἱερεύς σου Μελχισεδὲκ ἁγίαν θυσίαν, ἄμωμον προσφορὰν, ἱκετεύον- τές Se δεόμεθα, ἸΠαντοδύναμε Θεὲ, κελευσον τοῦτο διακονηθῆναι διὰ χειρὸς
o Se dylov ἀγγέλου σου εἰς TO ὑψηλόν σου θυσιαστήριον ---- ἵνα οἷαν δήποτε ἐκ
APPENDIX. 59
τούτου τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου μερίδα ἁγίαν τοῦ Σώματος τοῦ “Υἱοῦ, ἢ Kat τοῦ Αἵματος ληψώμεθα, πάσης ἐπουρανίου εὐλογίας καὶ χάριτος ἐμπλησθῶμεν" - ἐν πρώτοις μνήσθητι κυρίου τοῦ ἀρχιεπισκόπου ---- pergit comme- morare vivos, deinde Apostolos, Martyres, &c. μεθ᾽ ὧν ἡμᾶς σύνταξον,
4 > 4 A , μὴ ἐπισκέπτων τὰς πράξεις, K.T.As
S. Grecori Lib. Sacramentorum . Ed. Paris. 1642.
(a) P. 1. Antiphona. Kyrie Eleison. Gloria in excelsis, sive Litania. Oratio. Apostolus. Gradale, sive Alleluja. Postmodum legitur Evangelium, deinde Offertorium, et dicitur Oratio super Oblata. Dominus vobiscum. Sursum corda. Trisagium.
(b) Ρ. 2. Deinde sacerdos. Te igitur, clementissime Pater, per Jesum Christum — rogamus et petimus, uti accepta habeas et bene- dicas hec dona, hee munera, hee sancta sacrificia illibata: inprimis que Tibi offerimus pro Ecclesia, — una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro, Ill. et rege nostro Il. et omnibus orthodoxis, atque Catholice et Apo- stolice fidei cultoribus:—Memento, Domine, famulorum, famularum- que tuarum, Ill. et Ill. et omnium circumadstantium, quorum Tibi fides cognita est, et nota devotio; qui Tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis pro se suisque omnibus, pro redemptione animarum suarum, pro spe salutis et incolumitatis sue, Tibi reddunt vota sua, eterno Deo, vivo, et vero. Commemoratio B. Marie Virginis, Apostolorum, et omnium Sanctorum.
(c) Quam oblationem Tu, Deus, in omnibus, quesumus, benedictam, adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque facere digneris, ut nobis core¥pus, et san-feguis fiat dilectissimi ΕἾ Tui Domini Dei nostri Jesu Christi. Qui pridie quam pateretur (sequuntur verba Institutionis.) Unde et memores sumus, Domine, nos Tui servi, sed et plebs Tua sancta, Christi Filii Tui Dei nostri tam beatz passionis, necnon et ab inferis resurrectionis, sed et in ccelos gloriosz ascen- sionis. Offerimus preeclarzee majestati Tue de Tuis donis ac datis, hostiam > puram, hostiam »fsanctam, hostiam>fimmaculatam, panem PJ sanctum vite eterne, et calicem > salutis perpetue. Super que, propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris, et accepta habere, sicuti accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui justi Abel, et sacrifictum patriarch nostri Abrahz, et quod Tibi obtulit summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedec sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam — Jube hee perferri per manus angeli Tui in sublime altare Tuum,—ut quotquot ex hac altaris participatione sacro-sanctum ΕἾ Tui > Corpus, et > Sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedictione ccelesti, et gratia repleamur,
60 APPENDIX.
(d) Super Diptycha. Memento etiam, Domine, famulorum, famularuinque tuarum 11]. qui nos precesserunt cum signo fidei, et dormiunt in somno pacis. Ipsis, Domine, et omnibus in Christo quiescentibus locum refrigerii, lucis, et pacis, ut indulgeas, depre- camur.
BOOKS
PUBLISHED
BY JAMES PARKER AND CO.
OXFORD, ano 377, STRAND, LONDON.
Theological, Xe.
ARCHDEACON DENISON.
NOTES OF MY LIFE, 1805—1878. By Gerorcze Anrnony Denison, Vicar of East Brent, 1845; Archdeacon of Taunton, 1851. Second Edition, 8vo., cloth, price 12s.
THE LATE REV. JOHN KEBLE, M.A.
OCCASIONAL PAPERS AND REVIEWS, on Sir Walter Scott, Poetry, and Sacred Poetry, Bishop Warburton, Rev. John Miller, Exeter Synod, Judicial Committee of Privy Council, Parochial Work, the Lord’s Supper, Solomon, the Jewish Nation. By the late Rev. Joun Kesie, Author of “ The Christian Year.’ Demy ὅνο., cloth extra, 12s.
STUDIA SACRA. COMMENTARIES on the Introductory Verses of St.John’s Gospel, and on a Portion of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans ; with other Theological Papers by the late Rev. Joun Kesie, M.A. ὅνο,, cloth, 10s. 6d.
THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE HISTORY OF THE SUCCES- SIVE REVISIONS OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. By JAMES Parker, Hon. M.A. Oxon. Crown 8vo., cloth, 12s.
THE FIRST PRAYER-BOOK OF EDWARD VIL., compared with the Successive Revisions of the Book of Common Prayer; together with a Con- cordance and Index to the Rubrics in the several editions. By the same Author. Crown 8vo., cloth, 12s.
DID QUEEN ELIZABETH TAKE ‘OTHER ORDER” in the “ADVERTISEMENTS” of 15662 A LETTER to Lorp SExzorne, by James Parker, Hon, M.A. Oxon. 100 pp. 8vo., sewed, 3s. 6d.
A CATHOLIC RITUAL, published according to the Decrees of the First Two Synods of the Old Catholics of the German Empire. Done into English and Compared with the Offices of the Roman and Old German Rituals. By the Rey. F.E. Warren, B.D., Fellow of St. John’s College, Oxford. Crown 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
THE LATE BISHOP WILBERFORCE.
ADDRESSES TO THE CANDIDATES FOR ORDINATION on the Questions in the Ordination Service. Fifth Thousand. Crown 8vo., cloth, 6s.
WORDS OF COUNSEL ON SOME OF THE CHIEF DIFFI- CULTIES OF THE DAY, bequeathed to the Church in the Writings of SamueL WILBERFORCE, late Lord Bishop of Winchester. Collected and ar- ranged by the late T.V. Fospery, M.A. 2nd Edition, Crown 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.
SERMONS PREACHED ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS. With a Preface by the Lord Bishop of Ety. 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.
THE FIFTY-THIRD CHAPTER OF ISAIAH ACCORDING TO THE JEWISH INTERPRETERS. I. Texts edited from Printed Books, and MSS., by Ap. Neusaver. Price 18s, II. Translations by 5. R. Driver and Ap. NeusAver. With an Introduction to the Translations by the Rev. E. B. Pusey, Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. Post 8vo., cloth, 12s.
THE HISTORY OF CONFIRMATION. By Wutram Jackson, M.A., Queen’s College, Oxford; Vicar of Heathfield, Sussex, Crown 8vo., cloth, 4s. (878.5. 10.)
2 THEOLOGICAL WORKS, &c. (continued).
BISHOP CLEVELAND COXE. APOLLOS; or, THE WAY OF GOD. A Plea for the Religion of
Scripture. By A. CLEVELAND Coxe. Crown 8vo., cloth, 5s.
REV. E. B. PUSEY, D.D.
DANIEL THE PROPHET. Nine Lectures delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Oxford. With a new Preface. By E. B. Pusty, D.D., &c. Seventh Thousand. 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d.
THE MINOR PROPHETS; with a Commentary Explanatory and Practical, and Introductions to the Several Books. 4to., cloth, 8515. 6d.
THE DOCTRINE OF THE REAL PRESENCE, as contained in the Fathers from the death of St.John the Evangelist to the 4th General Council. By the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D. 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.
THE REAL PRESENCE, the Doctrine of the English Church, with a vindication of the reception by the wicked and of the Adoration of our Lord Jesus Christ truly present. By the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D. 8vo., 6s.
The COUNCILS of the CHURCH, from the Council of Jerusalem to the close of the 2nd General Council of Constantinople, 4.0. 381, By the Rev. E. B. Pusry, D.D. 8vo., cloth, 6s.
ELEVEN ADDRESSES DURING A RETREAT OF THE COM- PANIONS OF THE LOVE OF JESUS, engaged in Perpetual Intercession for the Conversion of Sinners. By the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D. 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
ON THE CLAUSE ‘AND THE SON.” A LETTER to the Rev. H. P. Lippon, D.D. By the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D. 8vo., cloth, 5s.
THE EPISTLES AND GOSPELS.
A COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES AND GOSPELS IN THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER. Extracted from Writings of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, anterior to the Division of the East and West. With an Introductory Notice by the Dean oF St. Paut’s. In Two Vols., Crown 8vo., cloth, 15s.
THE EXPLANATION or raze APOCALYPSE by VENERABLE BEDA, Translated by the Rev. EDW. MARSHALL, M.A,, F.S.A., formerly Fellow of Corpus Christi College, Oxford. 180 pp. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
THE OLD TESTAMENT. STORIES FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. With Four Illus-
trations. Square Crown 8vo., cloth, 4s.
MUSINGS ON THE PSALM (CXIX.) OF DIVINE ASPIRA- TIONS. 32mo., cloth, 2s.
GODET’S BIBLICAL STUDIES ON THE OLD TESTAMENT. Edited by the Hon. and Rev. W. H. LytTetton. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 6s.
VERY REV. JOHN W. BURGON, B.D., Dean of Chichester.
THE LAST TWELVE VERSES OF THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MARK Vindicated against Recent Critical Objectors and Established,
by Joun W. Bureon, B.D., Dean of Chichester. With Facsimiles of Codex Ν and Codex L. 8vo., cloth, 12s.
REV. CANON TREVOR, D.D., M.A.
THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF THE SACRIFICE AND PARTICIPATION OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST. By Greorce Trevor, D.D., M.A., Canon of York; Rector of Beeford. Second Edition, revised and enlarged. Crown 8yo., cloth, 10s. 6d.
THEOLOGICAL WORKS, &c. (continued). 3
ToS
THE LATE REV. J. KEBLE, M.A.
LETTERS OF SPIRITUAL COUNSEL AND GUIDANCE. By the late Rev. J. Krstur, M.A., Vicarof Hursley. Edited, with a New Preface, by R. F. Witson, M.A., Vicar of Rownhams, ὅθ. Third Edition, much en- larged, Post 8vo., cloth, 6s.
ON EUCHARISTICAL ADORATION. By the late Rev. Jonn Keste, M.A., Vicar of Hursley.—With Considerations suggested by a Pastoral Letter on the Doctrine of the Most Holy Eucharist. Cheap Edition, 24mo., sewed, 2s.
THE LATE BISHOP OF BRECHIN.
AN EXPLANATION OF THE THIRTY-NINE ARTICLES. With an Epistle Dedicatory to the Rev. E. B. Pusey, D.D. By A. P. Forsss, D.C.L., Bishop of Brechin. Second Edition, Crown 8vo., cloth, 12s.
A SHORT EXPLANATION OF THE NICENE CREED, for the Use of Persons beginning the Study of Theology. By ALEXANDER PENROSE Forses, D.C.L., Bishop of Brechin. Second Edition. Crown 8vo., cloth, 6s.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY.
THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE BODY OF CHRIST. The Bampton Lectures for 1868. By GeorceE Moserty, D.C.L., Lord Bishop of Salisbury. 2nd Edit. Crown 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.
SERMONS ON THE BEATITUDES, with others mostly preached before the University of Oxford. By GEoRGE MoBERLY, D.C.L. Third Edition. Crown 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.
REV. WILLIAM BRIGHT, D.D. A HISTORY OF THE CHURCH, from the Edict of Milan, a.p. 813, to the Council of Chalcedon, a.p.451. Second Edition. Post 8vo., 10s. 6d.
JOHN DAVISON, B.D.
DISCOURSES ON PROPHECY. In which are considered its Struc- ture, Use, and Inspiration. By JoHn Davison, B.D. A New Edition. 8vo., cloth, 9s.
THE LATE ARCHDEACON FREEMAN.
THE PRINCIPLES OF DIVINE SERVICE; or, An Inquiry con- cerning the True Manner of Understanding and Using the Order for Morning and Evening Prayer, and for the Administration of the Holy Communion in the Eng- lish Church. A New Edition. 2 vols., 8vo., cloth, 165.
CATENA AUREA.
CATENA AUREA. A Commentary on the Four Gospels, collected out of the Works of the Fathers by S. THomas Aquinas. Uniform with the Library of the Fathers. Re-issue. Complete in 6 vols. 8vo., cloth, £2 2s.
REV. DR. IRONS.
CHRISTIANITY AS TAUGHT BY S. PAUL. The Bampton Lectures for 1870. To which is added an Appendix of the Continuous Sense of S. Paul’s Epistles; with Notes and Metalegomena. Second Edition, with New Preface, 8vo., with Map, cloth, 9s.
REV. I. GREGORY SMITH, M.A.
CHARACTERISTICS OF CHRISTIAN MORALITY. The Bamp- ton Lectures for 1873. Second Edition, Crown 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
BEDE’S ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
BEDE’S ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH NATION. A New Translation by the Rev. L. GipiEy, M.A., Chaplain of St. Nicholas’, Salisbury. Crown 8vo., cloth, 6s.
REV. ἢ. WATERLAND, D.D. A CRITICAL HISTORY OF THE ATHANASIAN CREED, by
the Rev. DanieLt WaTERLAND, D.D. Edited by the Rev. J. R. Kine, M.A. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 5s.
4 ANCIENT DOCTRINAL TREATISES, ὅσο.
THE CONSTITUTIONS AND CANONS ECCLESIASTICAL OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND, Referred to their Original Sources, and Illustrated with Explanatory Notes. By Mackenzie E. C. Watcort, B.D., F.S.A., Precentor and Prebendary of Chichester. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 4s. ἘΣ
THE PASTORAL RULE OF ST.GREGORY. Sancti Gregorii Pape Regule Pastoralis Liber, ad Johannem Episcopum Civitatis Ravenne. With an English Translation. By the Rev. H. R. Bramuey, M.A., Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 6s.
THE DEFINITIONS OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH and Canons of Discipline of the first four General Councils of the Universal Church. In Greek and English. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 2s. 6d.
DE FIDE ET SYMBOLO: Documenta quedam nee non Aliquorum SS. Patrum Tractatus. Edidit Carotus A. Heurtuey, S.T.P., Dom. Mar- garete Prelector, et Aidis Christi Canonicus. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 4s. 6d. y
S. AURELIUS AUGUSTINUS, Episcopus Hipponensis, de Catechi- zandis Rudibus, de Fide Rerum que non videntur, de Utilitate Credendi. In Usum Juniorum. Edidit C. Marriott, S.T.B., Olim Coll. Oriel. Socius. Mew Edition. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d. ;
ANALECTA CHRISTIANA, In usum Tironum. Excerpta, Epi- stole, &c., ex Eusesit, &c.; S.Icnatiu Epistole ad Smyrnzos et ad Poly- carpum; Εἰ. 5, CLEMENTIS ALEXANDRI Pzdagogo excerpta; S. ATHANASII Sermo contra Gentes. Edidit et Annotationibus illustravit C. Marriott, S.T.B. 8vo., 10s. δά.
CUR DEUS HOMO, or Why God was made Man; by Sr. AnsELM.
Translated into English, with an Introduction, &c.
8vo., 2s. Gd.
Second Edition. Feap,
THE BOOK OF RATRAMN the Priest and Monk of Corbey, com- monly called Bertram, on the Body and Blood of the Lord. (Latin and Eng- lish.) To which is added AN APPENDIX, containing the Saxon Homily of
fElfric. Feap. 8vo.
[Nearly ready.
OXFORD SERIES OF DEVOTIONAL WORKS.
Feap. 8vo., printed in Red and Black, on
The Imitation of Christ. FOUR BOOKS. By Thomas a Kem-
Pts. Cloth, 4s. Andrewes’ Devotions. ‘DEVOTIONS. By the Right Rev.
Father in God,: LaunceLtor ANDREWES. Translated from the Greek and Latin, and arranged anew. Antique cloth, 5s.
Taylor’s Holy Living. THE RULE AND EXERCISES
OF HOLY LIVING. By Bisnop Jeremy Taytor. Antique cloth, 4s.
Taylor’s Holy Dying. THE RULE AND EXERCISES OF HOLY DYING. By Bishop JEREMY Taytor. Antique cloth, 4s.
Taylor’s Golden Grove.
THE GOLDEN GROVE; a Choice Manual, containing what is to be Believed, Practised, and Desired, or Prayed for. By BisHop JEREMY TayLor. Printed uniform with ‘‘ Holy Liying and Holy Dying.” An- tique cloth, 3s. 6d.
Sutton’s Meditations. GODLY MEDITATIONS UPON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE LORD’S SUPPER. By CuristopHER SuT- zon, D.D., late Prebend of Westminster. A new Edition. Antique cloth, 5s,
ned paper.
Laud’s Devotions. THE PRIVATE DEVOTIONS of Dr. για Laup, Archbishop of Canter- bury, and Martyr. Antique cloth, 5s.
Spinckes’ Devotions. TRUE CHURCH OF ENGLAND MAN’S COMPANION IN THE CLOSET; or, a complete Manual of Private Devotions, collected from the Writings of eminent Di- vines of the Church of England. Antique cloth, 4s.
Ancient Collects. ANCIENT COLLECTS anp OTHER PRAYERS. Selected for Devotional use from various Rituals. By Wa. Bricut, D.D. Antique cloth, 5s.
Devout Communicant. THE DEVOUT COMMUNICANT, exemplified in his Behaviour before, at, and after the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper: Practically suited to all the Parts of that Solemn Ordinance. 7th Edition, revised. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 4s.
EIKQN BASIAIKH. THE PORTRAITURE OF HIS SACRED MAJESTY KING CHARLES I, in his Solitudes and Sufferings. Ant. cloth, 5s.
DEVOTIONAL. 5 ἃς
THE SERVICE-BOOK OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND,
arranged according to the New Table of Lessons. Crown 8vo., roan, 12s. ; calf antique or calf limp, 16s.; limp morocco or best morocco, 18s.
ANNUS DOMINI. A Prayer for each Day of the Year, founded on a Text of Holy Scripture. By Curistina G. Rossetti. 82mo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
DEVOTIONS BEFORE AND AFTER HOLY COMMUNION. With Prefatory Note by Kesie. Sixth Edition, in red and black, on toned paper, 32mo., cloth, 2s.
The above, with the Service, 32mo., cloth, 2s. 6d.
INSTRUCTIONS ON THE HOLY EUCHARIST, AND DEVO- TIONS FOR HOLY COMMUNION, being Part V. of the Clewer Manuals, by Rev. T. T. Canter, M.A., Rector of Clewer. 18mo., cloth, 2s.
THE EVERY-DAY COMPANION. By the Rev. W. H. Rivtey, M.A., Rector of Hambleden, Bucks. Fecap. 8vo., cloth, 3s.
THE LIFE OF JESUS CHRIST IN GLORY: Daily Meditations, from Easter Day to the Wednesday after Trinity Sunday. By Nover. Trans- lated from the French, and adapted to the Use of the English Church. Third Thousand. 12mo., cloth, 6s.
A GUIDE FOR PASSING ADVENT HOLILY. By Avzrtion.
Translated from the French, and adapted to the use of the English Church. New Edition. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 5s.
A GUIDE FOR PASSING LENT HOLILY. By Avritron. Translated from the French, and adapted to the use of the English Church. Fourth Edition. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 5s.
MEDITATIONS FOR THE FORTY DAYS OF LENT. With a Prefatory Notice by the ARCHBISHOP OF DUBLIN. 18mo., cloth, 2s. 6d.
OF THE IMITATION OF CHRIST. Fovr Booxs. By Tuomas
A Kempis. A New Edition revised. On toned paper, with red border-lines, &c. Small 4to., cloth, 12s, Also, printed in red and black. Fcap., elcth, 4s.
THE INNER LIFE, Hymns on the ‘Imitation of Christ,” by Tuomas A’Kempts; designed especially for Use at Holy Communion, By the Author of “ Thoughts from a Girl’s Life,” &c. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 3s.
DAILY STEPS TOWARDS HEAVEN;; or, Practical Thoughts on the Gospel History, for every day in the year. With Titles and Characters of Christ. 32mo., roan, 2s.6d. Large type edition, Crown 8vo, cloth, 5s.
EVENING WORDS. Brief Meditations on the Introductory Portion of our Lord’s Last Discourse with His Disciples. 16mo., cloth, 25.
THOUGHTS DURING SICKNESS. By Rozerr Brerr, Author of “The Doctrine of the Cross,” ἅς. Fecap. 8vo., limp cloth, 1s. 6d.
THE PASTOR IN HIS CLOSET; or, A Help to the Devotions
of the Clergy. By Joun Anmstrone, D.D., late Lord Bishop of Grahamstown. Third Edition. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 2s.
BREVIATES FROM HOLY SCRIPTURE, arranged for use by the Bed of Sickness. By the Rev. 6. AnpeN, M.A., Rector of Winterborne-Came ; Domestic Chaplain to the Right Hon. the Earl of Devon. 2nd Ed. Fcap. 8vo., 2s.
SHORT READINGS FOR SUNDAY. By the Author of ‘ Foot- prints in the Wilderness.”” With Twelve Illustrations on Wood. Third Thou- sand, Square Crown 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
DEVOTIONS FOR A TIME OF RETIREMENT AND PRAYER FOR THE CJ.ERGY. New Edition, revised. Feap. 8vo., cloth, Is.
EARL NELSON’S FAMILY PRAYERS. With Responsions and
Variations for the different Seasons, for General Use. New ard improved Edition, large type, cloth, 2s.
6 SERMONS, ὅδε.
eee
SERMONS, &c.
PAROCHIAL SERMONS. By E. B. Pusry, D.D. Vol. I. From
Advent to Whitsuntide. Seventh Edition. 8vo., cloth, 6s. Vol. II., 8vo., cl., 6s.
oo Vol. Ill. Reprinted from ‘“ Plain Sermons by Contributors to Tracts for the Times.’’? Revised Edition. 8vo., cloth, 6s.
PAROCHIAL SERMONS preached and printed on Various Occa- sions, 1832—1850. By E. B. PUSEY, D.D. 8vo., cloth, 6s.
SERMONS preached before the UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD between A.D. 1859 and 1872. By E. B. Pusry, D.D. 8vo., cloth, 6s.
X. SERMONS AT THE CONSECRATION OF S. SAVIOUR’S, LEEDS. 1845. By E. B. Pusry, D.D. Together with Eight Sermons by the Rev. Jonn ΚΈΒΙΕ, C. Marriott, W. U. Ricnarps, I. WintIaMs; with a Preface by Dr. PusEy.
LENTEN SERMONS preached chiefly to Young Men at the Uni- versities, between a.D. 1868 and 1874. By E. B. Puszy, D.D. 8vo., cloth, 6s. ILLUSTRATIONS OF FAITH. Eight Plain Sermons, by the -
late Rev. Epwarp Monro. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 2s. 6d. Uniform, and by the same Author,
PLAIN SERMONS ON THE Book oF Com- | HistortcaL AND PRACTICAL SERMONS MON PRAYER. F cap. 8vo., cloth, 5s. ON THE SUFFERINGS AND RESUR-
SerMons ON NEw TesTaMENT CHARAC- RECTION OF OUR LoRD. 2 vols., Feap. TERS. Fecap. 8vo., 4s. 8vo., cloth, 10s.
CHRISTIAN SEASONS.—Short and Plain Sermons for every Sunday and Holyday throughout the Year. 4 vols., Feap. 8vo., clots, 10s. Second Series, 4 vols., Feap. 8vo., cloth, 10s.
SHORT SERMONS FOR FAMILY READING, following the Order of the Christian Seasons. By the Rev. J. W. Burcon, B.D. 2 vols., Feap. 8vo., cloth, 8s. Second Series, 2 vols., Feap. 8vo., cloth, 8s.
PAROCHIAL SERMONS. By the late Bp. Anmsrrone. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 5s.
SERMONS FOR FASTS AND FESTIVALS. By the late Bp. Arm- stronc. A New Edition. Fcap. 8vo., ds.
SERMONS FOR THE CHRISTIAN YEAR. By J. Kents, M.A.
ADVENT TO CHRIstMAS. 8vo., cl., 6s. | EASTER TO ASCENSION Day. §8vo.,
AsH- WEDNESDAY TO Hoty WEEK. cloth, 6s.
8vo., cloth, 6s. AScENSION Day To TriIntty SUNDAY CHRISTMAS AND EPIPHANY. 8vo., inclusive. S8vo., cloth, 6s.
cloth, 6s. Trinity, Part I. 8vo., cloth, 63. Hoty WEEK. 8vo., cloth, 6s. Sarnts’ Days. 8vo., cloth, 6s.
VILLAGE SERMONS ON THE BAPTISMAL SERVICE. By the Rev. Joun Kesie, M.A. 8vo., cloth, 5s.
THE AWAKING SOUL, as Sketched in the 130th Psalm. Ad- dresses delivered in Lent, 1877. By E.R. Witperrorce, M.A. Crown S8vo., limp cloth, 2s. 6d.
XX, SHORT ALLEGORICAL SERMONS. By B.K. W. Prarsz, M.A., and W. A. Gray, M.A. Fifth Edition, Fcap. 8vo., sewed, Is.
SERMONS AND ESSAYS ON THE APOSTOLICAL AGE. By the Very Rev. ARTHUR PeNRHYN STaNuEy, D.D. Third Edition, revised. Crown 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.
WORDS AT COMMUNION-TIME. Short Sermons preached at Celebrations of Holy Communion. By Water Francts Exere, M.A. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 85. 6d.
OXFORD LENT SERMONS, 1857, 8, 9, 65, 6, 7, 8, 9, 70. 8vo., cloth, 5s. each.
“SINGLE HEART.” Four Advent Sermons, by Epwarp M. Ben- son, Lord Bishop of Truro. Crown 8vo., cloth, 2s. 6d.
ENGLISH DIVINES. y
GHorks of the Standard English Divines,
PUBLISHED IN THE LIBRARY OF ANGLO-CATHOLIC THEOLOGY,
AT THE FOLLOWING PRICES IN CLOTH.
ANDREWES’ (BP.) COMPLETE WORKS. 11 vols., 8yo., £3 7s. THe Sermons. (Separate.) 5 vols., £1 15s. BEVERIDGE’S (BP.) COMPLETE WORKS. 12 vols., 8vo., £4 4s. Tue Enetish ΤΉΕΒΟΙΠΟΘΙΟΑΙ, Works. 10 vols., £3 10s.
BRAMHALL’S (ABP.) WORKS, WITH LIFE AND LETTERS, &c. 5 vols., 8vo., £1 15s. (Vol. 2 cannot be sold separately.)
BULL’S (BP.) HARMONY ON JUSTIFICATION. 2 vols., 8yo., 10s. DEFENCE OF THE NICENE CREED. 2 vols., 10s. JUDGMENT OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. is. COSIN’S (BP.) WORKS COMPLETE. 5 vols., 8vo., £1 10s. wp oe DEFENSIO ECCLESLZ ANGLICANA. vo., 75.
FRANK’S SERMONS. 2 vols., 8vo., 10s. FORBES’ CONSIDERATIONES MODEST. 2 vols., 8vo., 12s. GUNNING’S PASCHAL, OR LENT FAST. 8vo., 6s.
HAMMOND’S PRACTICAL CATECHISM. 8vo., 5s. MISCELLANEOUS THEOLOGICAL WORKS. is. THIRTY-ONE SERMONS. 2 Parts. 10s.
HICKES’S TWO TREATISES ON THE CHRISTIAN PRIEST-
HOOD. 8 vols., 8vo., 15s.
JOHNSON’S (JOHN) THEOLOGICAL WORKS. 2 vols., 8vo., 10s.
ENGLISH CANONS. 2 vols., 12s.
LAUD'S (ABP.) COMPLETE WORKS. 7 vols., (9 Parts,) 8v0.,
7s.
L’ESTRANGE’S ALLIANCE OF DIVINE OFFICES. 8vo., 6s.
MARSHALL’S PENITENTIAL DISCIPLINE. (This volume
cannot be sold separate from the complete set.)
NICHOLSON’S (BP.) EXPOSITION OF THE CATECHISM. (This
volume cannot be sold separate from the complete set.) OVERALL’S (BP.) CONVOCATION-BOOK OF 1606. 8vo., 5s. PEARSON’S (BP.) VINDICLZ EPISTOLARUM S&S. IGNATITI. 2 vols. 8vo., 10s.
THORNDIKE’S (HERBERT) THEOLOGICAL WORKS COM- PLETE. 6 vols., (10 Parts,) 8vo., £2 10s.
WILSON’S (BP.) WORKS COMPLETE. With LIFE, by Rey. ὅδ. ΚΕΒΙΕ. 7 vols., (8 Parts,) 8vo., £3 3s.
A complete set, 80 Vols. in 88 Parts, £21.
8 POETRY, &e.
THE AUTHORIZED EDITIONS OF THE CHRISTIAN YEBAXZ With the Author’s latest Corrections and Additions.
NOTICE.—Messrs. Parker are the sole
Publishers of the Editions of the
“Christian Year’? issued with the sanction and under the direction of the Author’s representatives, All Editions without their imprint are unauthorized.
SMALL 4to. EpITION.
Handsomely printed on toned paper, with red border lines
382mo. EDITION.
Cloth boards, gilt edges 6 Cloth, limp . - . Ἐῶ Το we
and initial letters. Cloth extra 5 : a0 16 48mo. EpITION. Cloth, limp . . . Roan ᾿ 5:
μ 9 aon
Demy 8vo. EDITION.
Cloth . 5 - - So ἢ FACSIMILE OF THE 151 EptI- Footscap 8vo. ΕΡΙΤΙΟΝ. TION, with a list of the variations from the Origi-
Cloth . : - τ. Be OE nal Text which the Author 24mo. Epitron. made in later Editions. Cloth, red lines. : oe 0 2 vols., 12mo., boards wuts sO The above Editions (except the Facsimile of the First Edition) are kept in a variety of bindings, which may be ordered through the Trade, or direct from the Publishers. The chief bindings are Morocco plain, Morocco Antique, Calf Antique, and Vellum, the prices varying according to the style.
By the same Author. LYRA INNOCENTIUM. Thoughts in Verse on Christian Chil- dren. Thirteenth Edition. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 5s. —— 24mo., cloth, red lines, 3s. 6d. 48mo. edition, limp cloth, 6d.; cloth boards, 1s. MISCELLANEOUS POEMS BY THE REV. JOHN KEBLE, M.A., Vicar of Hursley. [With Preface by G.M.] Third Edition. Fecap., cloth, 6s.
THE PSALTER, OR PSALMS OF DAVID: In English Verse. Fourth Edition. Fcap., cloth, 6s.
18mo., cloth, 15.
The above may also be had in various bindings.
A CONCORDANCE TO THE “CHRISTIAN YEAR.” Feap. 8vo., toned paper, cloth, 4s.
MUSINGS ON THE “CHRISTIAN YEAR;” wira GLEANINGS From Turrty YEArs’ INTERCOURSE WITH THE LATE Rev. J. Kesiz, by CHAR- LOTTE M. YONGE; to which are added Recollections of Hursley, by FRANCES M. WILBRAHAM. Second Edition. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.
MEMOIR OF THE REV. J. KEBLE, M.A. By Sir J. T. Coxx-
RIDGE. Fourth and Cheaper Edition. Post 8vo., cloth, 6s.
CHURCH POETRY, AND PAROCHIAL. 9
EEO”
Chureh Bortry. RE-ISSUE OF THE POETICAL WORKS OF THE LATE
REV. ISAAC WILLIAMS.
THE CATHEDRAL; or, The Catholic and Apostolic Church in England. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 4s.; 32mo., cloth, 2s. 6d.
THE BAPTISTERY; or, The Way of Eternal Life. With Plates by Boetius A Botswert. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 7s. 6d.; 32mo., cloth, 2s. 6d.
HYMNS FROM THE PARISIAN BREVIARY. 32mo., cloth, 2s. 6d.
THE CHRISTIAN SCHOLAR. Fcap. 8vo.,cl., 5s.; 32mo., cl., 2s. 6d. THOUGHTS IN PAST YEARS. 32mo., cloth, 2s. 6d.
THE SEVEN DAYS OF THE OLD AND NEW CREATION. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d. THE CHILD’S CHRISTIAN YEAR, THE CHILD’S CHRISTIAN YEAR. Hymns for every Sunday and Holyday throughout the Year. Cheap Edition, 18mo., cloth, 1s.
BISHOP CLEVELAND COXE. CHRISTIAN BALLADS AND POEMS. By Arrtuvur Crevetanp Coxe, D.D., Bishop of Western New York. A New Edition. Feap. 8vo., cloth, 8s. Also selected Poems in a packet, 32mo., 15.
DR. FREDERICK G. LEE, THE BELLS OF BOTTEVILLE TOWER; A Christmas Story in Verse: and other Poems. By Freperick G. Leer, Author of “ The Martyrs of Vienne and Lyons,” “ Petronilla,’’ &c. Feap. 8vo., with Illustrations, cloth, 4s.6d.
Parochial.
THE CONFIRMATION CLASS-BOOK: Notes for Lessons, with APPENDIX, containing Questions and Summaries for the Use of the Candidates. By E. M. Hotmes, LL.B., Rector of Marsh Gibbon, Bucks; Diocesan Inspector of Schools; Author of the “ Catechist’s Manual.’”’ Feap. 8vo., limp cloth, 2s. 6d.
Also, in wrapper, THE QuESTIONS AND SUMMARIES separate, 4 sets of 128 pp. in packet, 15. each.
THE CATECHIST’S MANUAL, by E. M. Hormrs, LL.B., Rector of Marsh Gibbon, Bucks; with an Introduction by the late SamuEL WILBER- ForcE, D.D., Lord Bishop of Winchester. Sixth Thousand, revised. Crown 8vo., limp cloth, 5s.
A MANUAL OF PASTORAL VISITATION, intended for the Use of the Clergy in their Visitation of the Sick and Afflicted. By a Parisn Priest. Dedicated, by permission, to His Grace the Archbishop of Dublin. Second Edition, Crown 8vo., limp cloth, 3s. 6d.; roan, 4s.
A SERIES OF WALL PICTURES illustrating the New Testament. The Set of 16 Pictures, size 22 inches by 19 inches, 12s.
COTTAGE PICTURES FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT. A Series of Twenty-eight large folio Engravings, brilliantly coloured by hand, The Set, 7s. 6d.
COTTAGE PICTURES FROM THE NEW TESTAMENT. A Series of Twenty-eight large folio Engravings, brilliantly coloured. The Set, 7s. 6d.
Upwards of 8,000 Sets of these Cottage Pictures have been sold.
TWELVE SACRED PRINTS FOR PAROCHIAL USE. Printed in Sepia, with Ornamental Borders. The Set, One Shilling; or each, One Penny.
Upwards of 100,000 of these Prints have already been sold,
10 UISCELLANEOUS.
~~ an
THE ELEMENTS OF PSYCHOLOGY.
THE ELEMENTS OF PSYCHOLOGY, ON THE PRINCIPLES OF BENEKE, Stated and Illustrated in a Simple and Popular Manner by Dr. G. Rave, Professor in the Medical College, Philadelphia ; Fourth Edition, considerably Altered, Improved, and Enlarged, by JoHANN GOTTLIEB DRESS- LER, late Director of the Normal School at Bautzen. Translated from the German. Post 8vo., cloth, 6s.
REV. CANON GREGORY.
ARE WE BETTER THAN OUR FATHERS? or, A Comparative View of the Social Position of England at the Revolution of 1688, and at the Present Time. FOUR LECTURES delivered in St. Paul’s Cathedral. By RosBert GREGORY, M.A., Canon of St. Paul’s. Crown 8vo., 2s. 6d.
THE LATE REV, CANON JENKINS.
THE AGE OF THE MARTYRS; or, the First Three Centuries of the Work of the Church of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. By the late Rev. J. ἢ. Jenkins, B.D., Canon of Pieter Maritzburg; Fellow of Jesus Col- lege, Oxford. Crown 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
PASSAGES FROM CHURCH HISTORY. By the same Author. [In the Press.
PROFESSOR GOLDWIN SMITH. THE REORGANIZATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD. By Gotpwin Situ. Post 8vo., limp cloth, 2s.
LECTURES ON THE STUDY OF HISTORY.- Delivered in Oxford, 1859—61. Second Edition. Crown 8vo., limp cloth, 3s. 6d.
IRISH HISTORY AND IRISH CHARACTER. Cheap Edition, Feap. 8vo., sewed, 15. 6d.
THE EMPIRE. A Series of Letters published in ‘‘The Daily News,’’ 1862, 1863. Post 8vo., cloth, price 6s.
MRS. ALGERNON KINGSFORD. ROSAMUNDA THE PRINCESS: An Historical Romance of the
Sixth Century; the Crocus, WATER-REED, RosE and MARIGOLD, PAINTER OF Venice, Nosie Love, Romance of a Ring, and other Tales. By Mrs. ALGER- NoN KinGsForD. ὅνο,, cloth, with Twenty-four Illustrations, 6s.
THE EXILE FROM PARADISE. THE EXILE FROM PARADISE, translated by the Author of the “‘ Life of S. Teresa.’ Fcap., cloth, 15. 6d.
H. A. MUNRO-BUTLER-JOHNSTONE, M.P. THE FAIR OF NIJNI-NOVGOROD. With a Map and Twelve
Illustrations. By H. A. Munro-BuTLer-Jonnstone, M.P. Second Edition, Feap. 8vo., cloth, 5s.
THE TURKS: their Character, Manners, and Institutions, as bearing on the Eastern Question. By H. A. Munro-BuTLer-JoHNnsTone, M.P. 8vo.,
sewed, ls. VILHELM THOMSEN.
THE RELATIONS BETWEEN ANCIENT RUSSIA AND SCAN- DINAVIA, and the Origin of the Russian State THREE LECTURES de- livered at the Taylor Institution, Oxford, in May, 1876, by Dr. VibHELM THOMSEN, Professor at the University of Copenhagen. Small 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
BERNARD BOSANQUET, M.A.
ATHENIAN CONSTITUTIONAL HISTORY, as Represented in Grote’s *‘ History of Greece,’’ critically examined by G. F. ScuébMann: Trans- lated, with the Author’s permission, by Bernarp Bosanaquet, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of University College, Oxford. 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
ARCHITECTURE AND ARCHAZOLOGY. 11
THE PRAYER-BOOK CALENDAR. THE CALENDAR OF THE PRAYER-BOOK ILLUSTRATED.
(Comprising the first portion of the ‘Calendar of the Anglican Church,’’ with additional Illustrations, an Appendix on Emblems, &c.) With Two Hundred Engravings from Medieval Works of Art. Sixth Thousand. Fcap. 8vo., cl., 6s.
SIR G. G. SCOTT, F.S.A.
GLEANINGS FROM WESTMINSTER ABBEY. By Sir Groner GiueertT Scort, R.A., F.S.A. With Appendices supplying Further Particu- lars, and completing the History of the Abbey Buildings, by Several Writers. Second Edition, enlarged, containing many new Illustrations by O. Jewitt and others. Medium 8vo., 10s. 6d.
THE LATE CHARLES WINSTON.
AN INQUIRY INTO THE DIFFERENCE OF STYLE OBSERV- ABLE IN ANCIENT GLASS PAINTINGS, especially in England, with Hints on Glass Painting, by the late CHarLtes Winston. With Correctious and Additions by the Author. 2 vols., Medium 8vo., cloth, £1 11s. 6d.
REV, SAMUEL LYSONS, F.S5.A.
OUR BRITISH ANCESTORS: WHO AND WHAT WERE THEY? An Inquiry serving to elucidate the Traditional History of the Early Britons by means of recent Excavations, Etymology, Remnants of Religious Worship, Inscriptions, Craniology, and Fragmentary Collateral History. By the Rey. SamueEt Lysons, M.A., F.S.A., Rector of Rodmarton, and Perpetual Curate of St. Luke’s, Gloucester. Post 8vo., cloth, ds.
M. VIOLLET-LE-DUC. ON MILITARY ARCHITECTURE; Translated from the French
of M. Vio.ttet-Le-Duc. By M. Macpermort, Esq., Architect. With the 151 original French Engravings. Medium 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d.
JOHN HEWITT. ANCIENT ARMOUR AND WEAPONS IN EUROPE. By Joun
Hewitt, Member of the Archeological Institute of Great Britain. Vols. II. and III., comprising the Period from the Fourteenth to the Seventeenth Century, completing the work, £1 12s. Also Vol. I., from the Iron Period of the Northern Nations to the end of the Thirteenth Century, 18s. The work complete, 3 vols., 8vo., £2 10s.
REV. PROFESSOR STUBBS.
THE TRACT “DE INVENTIONE SANCTZ CRUCIS NOSTRA IN MONTE ACUTO ET DE DUCTIONE EJUSDEM APUD WALT- HAM,” now first printed from the Manuscript in the British Museum, with In- troduction and Notes by Witt1am Stusss, M.A. Royal 8vo., 5s.; Demy 8vo., 3s. 6d.
NORTHERN ANTIQUITIES,
THE PRIMEVAL ANTIQUITIES of ENGLAND and DENMARK COMPARED. By J.J. A.Worsaae. ‘Translated and applied to the illus- tration of similar remains in England, by W. J. Tuoms, F.S.A., &c. With numerous Illustrations. 8vo., cloth, 5s,
OUR ENGLISH HOME: Its Early History and Progress. With Notes on the Introduction of
Domestic Inventions. New Edition, Crown 8vo., cloth, 3s. 6d.
12 ARCHITECTURE AND ARCHZOLOGY.
JOHN HENRY PARKER, C.B., F.S.A.. HON, M.A. OXON.
AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF GOTHIC ARCHI- TECTURE. Fifth Edition, Revised and Enlarged, with 189 Illustrations, with a Topographical and Glossarial Index. Fcap. 8vo., cloth, 5s.
A CONCISE GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN GRECIAN, ROMAN, ITALIAN, AND GOTHIC ARCHITECTURE. A New Edition, revised. Feap. 8vo., with 470 Illustrations, in ornamental cloth, 7s. 6d.
AN ATTEMPT TO DISCRIMINATE THE STYLES OF AR- CHITECTURE IN ENGLAND, from the Conquest to the Reformation ; with a Sketch of the Grecian and Roman Orders. By the late THomas Rick- MAN, F.S.A. Seventh Edition, with considerable Additions, chiefly Historical, by Joun Henry Parker, C.B., F.S.A., &c. 8vo. { Nearly ready.
DOMESTIC ARCHITECTURE OF THE MIDDLE AGES, with numerous Engravings from Existing Remains, and Historical Illustrations from Contemporary Manuscripts. By the late Τὶ Hupson Turner, Esq. From the Norman Conquest to the Thirteenth Century; interspersed with Remarks on Domestic Manners during the same Period. 8vo., cloth, £1 15. 4 Reprint.
——_————- FROM EDWARD 1. to RICHARD II. (the Edwardian Period, or the Decorated Style). By the Editor of ‘‘The Glossary of Archi- tecture.”’ S8vo., cloth, £1 Is.
Also ————— FROM RICHARD II. ro HENRY VIII. (or the Perpen- dicular Style). With numerous Illustrations of Existing Remains, from Ori- ginal Drawings. In Two Vols., 8vo., £1 10s.
THE ARCHAZOLOGY OF ROME. By Joun Henny Parker, C.B. Part 7. THE COLOSSEUM AT ROME Compared with other Amphi-
theatres; with Thirty-six Plates. Medium 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d.
Part 8. THE AQUEDUCTS QF ROME, Traced from their Sources to their Mouths, with Thirty-six Plates, Maps, and Plans. Medium §8vo., cloth, 15s.
Part 9. THE TOMBS IN AND NEAR ROME, with the Colum-
baria and the Painted Tombs on the Via Latina, with Twenty-four Plates in Photo-engraving.
Part 10. MYTHOLOGY IN FUNEREAL SCULPTURE, AND EARLY CHRISTIAN SCULPTURE, with Sixteen Plates. These Two Parts in one Volume. Medium 8vo., cloth, 15s.
Part 11. CHURCH AND ALTAR DECORATIONS IN ROME,
including Mosaic Pictures and Cosmati Work. With 20 Plates and numerous Diagrams. Medium 8vo., cloth, 10s. 6d.
Part 12. THE CATACOMBS, or Ancient Cemeteries of Rome,
with Twenty-four Plates and Plans. Medium 8vo., cloth, 15s. SEPULCHRAL CROSSES.
A MANUAL for the STUDY of SEPULCHRAL SLABS and CROSSES of the MIDDLE AGES. By the Rev. Epwarp L. Curts, B.A. Illustrated by upwards of 800 Engravings. 8vo., cloth, 6s.
MEDIZVAL BRASSES,
A MANUAL OF MONUMENTAL BRASSES. Comprising an
Introduction to the Study of these Memorials, and a List of those remaining in
the British Isles. With Two Hundred Illustrations. By the late Rev. HERBERT Haines, M.A., of Exeter College, Oxford. 2 vols., 8vo., cloth, 12s,
ENGLISH COUNTRY HOUSES,
SIXTY-ONE VIEWS AND PLANS of recently erected Mansions, Private Residences, Parsonage-Houses, Farm-Houses, Lodges, and Cottages ; with Sketches of Furniture and Fittings: and A Practical ‘Treatise on House- Building. By Witi1aAM WILKINSON, Architect, Oxford. Second Edition, Royal 8vo., ornamental cloth, £1 5s.
NEW AND STANDARD EDUCATIONAL WORKS. 13
THE ANNALS OF ENGLAND. An Epitome of English History. From Cotemporary Writers, the Rolls of Parliament, and other Public Records. A LIBRARY EDITION, revised and enlarged, with additional Woodcuts: with a Recommendatory Note by the Regius Professor of Modern History, Oxford. S8vo., half-bound, 12s.
THE SCHOOL EDITION OF THE ANNALS OF ENGLAND. In Five Half-crown Parts. 1. Britons, Romans, Saxons, Normans. 2. The Plantagenets. 3. The Tudors. 4. The Stuarts. 5. The Restoration, to the Death of Queen Anne. Feap. 8vo., cloth.
THE NEW SCHOOL-HISTORY OF ENGLAND, from Early Writers and the National Records. By the Author of ‘‘ The Annals of England.” Sixth Thousand. Crown 8vo., with Four Maps, limp cloth, 5s.; Coloured-Maps, half roan, 6s.
A HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH CHURCH from its Foundation to the Reign of Queen Mary. By M.C.Sraprey. Fourth Edition, revised. Crown 8vo., cloth boards, 5s.
POETARUM SCENICORUM GRAECORUM, schyli, Sophoclis, Euripidis, et Aristophanis, Fabulz, Superstites, et Perditarum Fragmenta. Ex recognitione GUIL. DINDORFII. Editio Quinta. Royal 8vo., cloth, £1 Is.
THUCYDIDES, with Notes, chiefly Historical and Geographical. By the late T. Arnotp, D.D. With Indices by the Rev. R.P. G. Tippeman. Eighth Edition. 3 vols., 8vo., cloth lettered, £1 165.
JELF’S GREEK GRAMMAR.—A Grammar of the Greek Language, chiefly from the text of Raphael Kiihner. By Wm. Epw. Jer, B.D., late Student and Censor of Ch. Ch. Fourth Edition, with Additions and Corrections. 2 vols. 8vo., £1 10s. :
LAWS OF THE GREEK ACCENTS. By Joun Grirrirus, D.D., Warden of Wadham College, Oxford. Sixteenth Edition. 16mo., price 6d.
RUDIMENTARY RULES, with Examples, for the Use of Beginners in Greek Prose Composition. By Jonny Mircuryson, D.C.L., late Head Master of the King’s School, Canterbury, (now Bishop of Barbados). 16mo., sewed, 1s.
TWELVE RUDIMENTARY RULES FOR LATIN PROSE COM- POSITION: with Examples and Exercises, for the use of Beginners. By the Rev. E.Moorz,D.D., Principalof St.Edmund Hall, Oxford. Second Edit. 16mo.,6d.
MADVIG’S LATIN GRAMMAR. A Latin Grammar for the Use of Schools. By Professor Mapvie, with additions bythe Author. Translated by the Rev. G. Woops, M.A. New Edition, with an Index of Authors. 8vo., cloth, 12s.
ERASMI COLLOQUIA SELECTA: Arranged for Translation and Re-translation ; adapted for the Use of Boys who have begun the Latin Syntax. By Epwarp C, Lowe, D.D., Head Master of S.John’s Middle School, Hurst- pierpoint. Fcap. 8vo., strong binding, 3s.
PORTA LATINA: A Selection from Latin Authors, for Translation and Re-Translation; arranged in a Progressive Course, as an Introduction to the Latin Tongue. By Epwarp C. Lowe, D.D., Head Master of Hurstpierpoint School; Editor of Erasmus’ ‘‘ Colloquies,’’ &c. Feap. 8vo., strongly bound, 35.
A GRAMMATICAL ANALYSIS OF THE HEBREW PSALTER; being an Explanatory Interpretation of Every Word contained in the Book of Psalms, intended chiefly for the Use of Beginners in the Study of Hebrew. By JOANA JULIA GRESWELL. Post 8vo., cloth, 6s.
SUNDAY-SCHOOL EXERCISES, Collected and Revised from Manuscripts of Burghclere School-children, under the teaching of the Rev. W. B. Barter, late Rector of Highclere and Burghclere; Edited by his Son-in-law, the Bisuor or St. ANDREW’s. Second Edition. Crown 8vo., cloth, 5s.
A FIRST LOGIC BOOK, by Ὁ. P. Cuase, M.A., Principal of St. Mary Hall, Oxford. Small 4to., sewed, 3s.
NEW AND OLD METHODS OF ETHICS, by F. Y. Enczeworrn.
8vo., sewed, 3s,
14 OXFORD POCKET CLASSICS.
A SERIES ΟΕ GREEK AND LATIN CLASSICS FOR THE USE OF SCHOOLS.
GREEK POETS.
Cloth. Cloth.
8. d. | 8. d. ZEschylus - : 3 0 Sophocles . - Ε > ne Aristophanes. 2 vols. . 6 0 Homeri Ilias ᾿ - a Euripides. 3 vols. 6 6 Odyssea . oni ieee
Trageedie Sex 3 6! GREEK PROSE WRITERS. Aristotelis Ethica : . 2 O| Thucydides. 2vols. . 5 0 Demosthenes de Corona, et Ἔ Xenophontis Memorabilia 1 4 fEschines in Ctesiphontem Anabasis . 2 0 Herodotus. 2 vols. - ey 0 LATIN POETS.
_ Horatius : - . 2 0 | Lucretius. ᾿ Ξ 42 0 Juvenalis et Persius . 1 6 | Phedrus Ε stgie. & Lucanus 3 - Ξ . 2 6 | Virgilius z : πὰ Ὁ
LATIN PROSE WRITERS. Cesaris Commentarii, cum Sup- | Ciceronis Tuse. Disp. Lib. V. 2 0 plementisAuliHirtii et nine 2 6 | Ciceronis Orationes Selecte . 3 6 Commentarii de Bello | Cornelius Nepos 5 1. 4 6411... . 1 6) Livius. 4 vols. 6 0 Cicero De Officiis, de Senectute, Sallustius : - . 127 8 et de Amicitia . : . 2 Ὁ} Tacitus. 2 vols. . {9450
TEXTS WITH SHORT NOTES. UNIFORM WITH THE SERIES OF “OXFORD POCKET CLASSICS.”
GREEK WRITERS. TEXTS AND NOTES.
SOPHOCLES. 5. ds $e Asax (Text and Notes) = - 1 0, Anticone (Zezt and es ς Nisa ELECTRA a é TI) .0:} Putiocretes Ὁ Ξ ἐἦ ΕΓ (Ενιρυβ Rex ,, - - . 1.0] Tracuiniz τ - Ξ ΠΝ (ΕΡιρΡυβ COLONEUS ,, : ae LL 0 The Notes only, in one vol., cloth, 3s.
JESCHYLUS. Pers& (Text and Notes) . ἐδ δ. | CHoEPHORE (Text and Notes) . 1 0 ProMeETHEUS VINCTUS » « - O | EumeEnivEs Ἔ - sue lige ΘΈΡΤΕΜ CoNTRA THEBAS , . 1 SUFPLICES == ἁ a tthe AGAMEMNON go Se AO
The Notes only, in one vol., cloth, 3s. 6d. ARISTOPHANES.
Tue Knicuts (Text and Notes) 1 0 | AcHARNIANS (Text and Notes) 1 0 Tue Birps (Text and Notes) . 1 O
NEW SERIES OF ENGLISH NOTES. 15
EURIPIDES. Sods oa) ae Hecusa (Text and spond: Fe ἤΧὴ ‘Puaenissz (Text and Notes) . 1 0 MEDEA a «) 4) .0\) Azcrstrs 1.5.0 ORESTES 5 . 1 0 Theabove, Notes only, i in one vol., loth, 38. HIepPoLytTus ,, - 100! BAacchz τι ΠΝ ἢ DEMOSTHENES. De Corona (Text and Noles) . 2 O{|OnyntHtAc ORATIONS . Κα 1 20 HOMERUS. XENOPHON. Inras, Lts. 1.—vi. (Text and MeEmoRABILIA (Text and Notes) 2 6 OE) CS ar ee ee ARISTOTLE. JESCHINES. De Arte Poerica (Tert and In Cresipnontem (Text and Notes) . cloth, 2s.; sewed 1 6 Notes) 5 - 3 a2 OS DE ΒΕ Pupricayy,,f 0 3s: ‘yma 6 LATIN WRITERS. TEXTS AND NOTES. VIRGILIUS.
Bucotica (Teat and Notes) - 1 Of #nerpos, Lis. 1.—111. (Text GEORGICA 39 ao 0 and Notes) . . ok 0 HORATIUS.
Carmina, ὅτ. (Text and Notes) 2 0 Evistot# et Ars Poertica (Teat SATIRE a «1.0 and Notes) 5 The Notes only, in one vol., cloth, 2s, SALLUSTIUS. JucurTHa (Text and Notes) . 1 6| Catixina (Text and Notes) Sadie M.T. CICERO.
In Q. Ca&cit1um — DivInaTIo In CaATILINAM - 0
(Text and Notes) 1 0 | Pro Prancio (Tezt ἘΠῚ Notes) . 1 6 In VerRReEM AcTic PRIMA - 1 0O/]} Pro Mitone . : = aye UN Pro Lece Manitia, et Pro Pro Roscio - ον Ὁ
ARCHIA - : : - 10.) ORaTioNnEs Puttirrica, i Lis “6
The above, Notes only, in one vol., cloth, 3s. 6d. De Senectuteet De Amicitia 1 O| EpistoL# Serectz. Pars I i 6 CASAR. CORNELIUS NEPOS.
De Betto Gattico, Lis. 1.—11I. Lives (Text and Notes) . 1..Ὁ
(Text and Notes) . - oes O PHEDRUS.
LIVIUS FaBuLz (Text and Notes) Fre IK,
Lig. xxt.—xxtv. (Text and Notes) TACITUS.
sewed . 7 - . . 4 0 THe ANNALS. Notes Blind 2 vols., Ditto in cloth . - - Ses ὦ 16mo., cloth . 1 if
Portions of several other Authors are in preparation,
Uniform with the Oxford Pocket Classics.
THE LIVES OF THE MOST EMINENT ENGLISH POETS; WITH CRITICAL OBSERVATIONS ON THEIR WORKS. By Sa- MUEL JOHNSON. 3 vols., 24mo., cloth, 2s. 6d. each.
THE LIVES OF ADDISON, DRYDEN, AND POPE, with Critical Observations on their Works. By SamMueL Jounson. With Analyses of the Lives. 24mo., cloth, 2s.
CHOICE EXTRACTS FROM MODERN FRENCH AUTHORS,
for the use of Schools, 18mo., cloth, 3s.
16 BOOKS, c., RELATING TO OXFORD. |
A HANDBOOK FOR VISITORS TO OXFORD. Illustrated with
numerous Woodcuts by Jewitt, and Steel Plates by Le Keux. 4 New Edition. 8vo., cloth, 12s.
THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY CALENDAR for 1878. Corrected to the end of December, 1877. 12mo., cloth, 4s. 6d.
THE OXFORD TEN-YEAR BOOK: A Complete Register of Uni- | versity Honours and Distinctions, made up to the end of the Year 1870. Crown 8vo., roan, 7s. 6d.
| UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD LOCAL EXAMINATIONS. Exam-/} ination Papers and Division Lists for the years 1860 and 1861. 8vo., each 3s. 6d. Examination Papers for thé years 1870, 1871, 1872, 1873, 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877, 1878, each 2s. - Division Lists for the years 1867, 1868, each 1s. 6d. —__________—- for the years 1869, 1870, 1871, 1872, 1873, 1874, 1875, 1876, 1877, each 2s.
NEW VOLUME OF HISTORICAL TALES; Feap. 8vo., with Four Illustrations, cloth, 5s.
1
ENGLAND—THE MEDIAVAL PERIOD. FOUR TALES by the Rev. H. C. Apams, Vicar of Dry Sandford; Author of “ Wilton of Cuth- bert’s,’’ ‘‘ Schoolboy Honour,” &c.
Contents—The Orphan of Evesham, or The Jews and the Mendicant Orders ; Mark’s Wedding, or Lollardy; The White Rose of Lynden, or The Monks and the Bible; The Prior’s Ward, or The Broken Unity of the Church.
THE MESSAGE HOME, and other Poems. By Hexen Monracu Stuart. Fcap., cloth, toned paper, price 2s. 6d.
ORATIONES CREWEIANAE. The LATIN SPEECHES of the late Dr. MICHELL, Public Orator in the University of Oxford. With English Notes, Index, &c., by his Son, Εἰ. B. MICHELL, M.A., Barrister-at- Law. 4to., cloth, price 12s. 6d.
CHEAPER ISSUE OF TALES FOR YOUNG MEN AND WOMEN. In Six Half-crown Vols., cloth.
Vol. I. contains F. Εἰ. Pacet’s Mother and Son, Wanted a Wife, and Hobson’: Choice. Vol. II. F. E. Pacet’s Windycote Hall, Squitch, Tenants at Tinkers’ End. Vol. II]. W. E. HeyGare’s Two Cottages, The Sisters, and Old Jarvis’s Will.
Vol. lV. W. E. Heyeate’s James Bright the Shopman, The Politician, Ir-
revocable. Vol. V. R. Kine’s The Strike, and Jonas Clint; N. Brown’s Two to One, and False Honour.
Vol. VI. J. M. Neave’s Railway Accident; E. Monro’s The Recruit, Susan, Servants’ Influence, Mary Thomas, or Dissent at Evenly ; H. Hayman’s Caroline Elton, or Vanity and Jealousy.
Each Volume is bound as a distinct and complete work, and sold separately for PRESENTS. ae
201
¥ 25 1987
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE CARDS OR SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY
¢ 900 OF 2 £0 bl 6& Ὁ WALI SOd JIHS AVE JONVY G
MA3IASNMOG LV Ἴ1η