Chapter XII

The Service of the Eucharist considered in a Sacrificial View.

         That the Sacrament of the Eucharist, in whole or in part, in a sense proper or improper, is a sacrifice of the Christian Church, is a point agreed upon among all knowing and sober divines, Popish, Lutheran, or Reformed.  But the Romanists have so often and so grievously abused the once innocent names of oblation, sacrifice, propitiation, etc., perverting them to an ill sense, and grafting false doctrine and false worship upon them, that the Protestants have been justly jealous of admitting those names, or scrupulously wary and reserved in the use of them.

         The general way among both Lutheran and Reformed has been to reject any proper propitiation or proper sacrifice in the Eucharist; admitting however of some kind of propitiation in a qualified sense, and of sacrifice also, but of a spiritual kind, and therefore styled improper, or metaphorical.  Nevertheless Mr. Mede, a very learned and judicious Divine and Protestant, scrupled not to assert a proper sacrifice in the Eucharist (as he termed it), material sacrifice, the sacrifice of bread and wine, analogous to the mincha of the old Law. [See Mede’s Works, p. 355. ed. 3. A.D. 1672.]  This doctrine he delivered in the college chapel, A.D. 1635, which was afterwards published with improvements, under the title of The Christian Sacrifice.  In the year 1642, the no less learned Dr. Cudworth printed his well-known treatise on the same subject; wherein he as plainly denies any proper or any material sacrifice in the Eucharist [Cudworth’s True Notion of the Lord’s Supper, chap. v. p. 77.]; but admits. of a symbolical feast upon a sacrifice, [Cudworth, ibid. pp. 21, 78.] that is to say, upon the grand sacrifice itself commemorated under certain symbols.  This appears to have been the prevailing doctrine of our Divines, both before and since.  There can be no doubt of the current doctrine down to Mr. Mede: and as to what has most prevailed since, I need only refer to three very eminent Divines, who wrote in the years 1685, 1686, 1688. [Dr. Pelling on the Sacrament, pp. 41–47.  Dr. Sharpe (afterwards Archbishop), vol. vii. Serm. 2.  Dr. Payne’s Disc. of the Sacrifice of the Mass, pp. 42–54.]

         In the year 1702, the very pious and learned Dr. Grabe published his Irenaeus, and in his notes upon the author fell in with the sentiments of Mr. Mede, so far as concerns a proper and material sacrifice in the Eucharist [Grabe in Iren. lib. iv. cap. 32. p. 323. edit. Oxon.]: and after him, our incomparably learned and judicious Bishop Bull, in an English treatise, gave great countenance to the same. [Bishop Bull’s Answer to the Bishop of Meaux, pp. 18, 19.]

         Dr. Grabe’s declaring for a proper sacrifice in the Eucharist, and at the same time censuring both Luther and Calvin, by name, for rejecting it, gave great alarm to the learned Protestants abroad, and excited several of them to reexamine the question about the eucharistic sacrifice.

         The first who appeared was the excellent Buddaeus, (A.D. 1705) [Buddaeus de Origine Missae Pontificiae, Miscell. Sacr. tom. i. pp. 3–63.] a Lutheran Divine of established character for learning, temper, and judgment; though he happened to betray some precipitancy in this matter: he appeared much concerned at what Dr. Grabe had written on this argument, but misapprehended him all the time, as was natural for him to do: for, imagining that Dr. Grabe had maintained a real presence in the Lutheran sense, and a proper sacrifice besides, the consequence was self-evident, that such a presence and sacrifice together could resolve into nothing else but the sacrifice of the mass.  Therefore he treats Dr. Grabe all the way, as one that had asserted the popish sacrifice: and what confirmed him in the injurious suspicion was, that some of the Jesuits [Mémoires pour l’Histoire des Sciences, etc. A.D. 1703.] (whether ignorantly or artfully) had boasted of Dr. Grabe as a declared man on their side, against both Luther and Calvin.  However, Buddaeus’s dissertation on the subject is a well-penned performance, and may be of good service to every careful reader, for the light it gives into the main question.

         In the year 1706, a very learned Calvinist [Sam. Basnage, Annal. tom. i. pp. 370–374.] occasionally engaged in the same question about the sacrifice: not with any view to Dr. Grabe (so far as appears), but in opposition only to the Romanists.  However, I thought it proper just to make mention of him here, as falling within the same time, and being a great master of ecclesiastical antiquity.

         Some time after, (A.D. 1709,) Ittigius, a learned Lutheran, took occasion to pass some strictures upon Dr. Grabe in that article [Ittigius, Histor. Eccles. primi Saec. p. 204.]: then Deylingius [Deylingius, Observ. Sacr. tom. i. n. 54. p. 262.] and Zornius, [Zornius, Opuscul. Sacr. tom. i. p. 732.] learned Lutherans, and all still pursuing the same mistake which Buddaeus had fallen into.

         But in the year 1715, the acute and candid Pfaffius (a Lutheran also) took care to do justice to Dr. Grabe’s sentiments, (though not altogether approving them,) being so fair as to own, that Dr. Grabe’s notion of the eucharistic sacrifice was nothing akin to the sacrifice of the mass. [Pfaffius, Irenaei Fragm. Anecdot. p. 106 etc., 499.]  Nevertheless others still went on in the first mistake: and among the rest, the celebrated Le Clerc, [Clerici Histor. Eccl. p. 772.] and a greater man than he, Campegius Vitringa [Vitringa in Isa. tom. ii. p. 951.]; and another fine writer, [Moslem. A.D. 1733. in Praefat. ad Cudworth de Coena.] later than both; all of them condemning the doctrine, wrongfully, as popish.  But it may be proper here to take notice that the learned Deylingius, who had formerly charged Dr. Grabe too hastily, has, upon better information, retracted that censure, in a book lately published [Deylingius, Observat. Miscell. p. 103. A.D. 1736.]: and the complaint now is, not that Dr. Grabe asserted the sacrifice of the mass (which he heartily abhorred), but that he rejected the real, local, or corporal presence, [Vid. Deylingius, ibid. p. 77.] such as the Papists or Lutherans contend for: in which most certainly he judged right.

         But before I close this brief historical view of that controversy, it may not be improper to observe how far the learned Pfaffius was inclinable to concur with Dr. Grabe in this article.  He allows that the ancients, by oblation and sacrifice, meant more than prayer, and that it is even ludicrous to pretend the contrary. [Pfaffius, Irenaei Fragin. Anecdot. p. 50.]  He acknowledges that they speak of an oblation of bread and wine, [Ibid. pp. 254–274, 314, 344.] and that the Eucharist is a sacrifice of praise, [Ibid. pp. 330, 338.] and propitiatory also in a qualified sober sense. [Ibid. pp. 211, 229.]  In short, he seems almost to yield up everything that Dr. Grabe had contended for, excepting only the point of a proper or material sacrifice: and he looked upon that as resolving at length into a kind of logomachy, a difference in words or names, arising chiefly from the difficulty of determining what a sacrifice properly means, and from the almost insuperable perplexities among learned men, about the ascertaining any precise definition of it. [Ibid. in Praefat. et pp. 344, 345.]  I am persuaded there is a good deal of truth in what that learned gentleman has said, and that a great part of the debate, so warmly carried on a few years ago, was more about names than things.

         As the question arises chiefly out of what was taught by the ancient Fathers, it will be proper to inquire what they really meant by the word sacrifice, and in what sense they applied that name to the Eucharist, in whole or in part.  St. Austin, who well understood both what the Scripture and the Christian writers before him had taught, defines or describes a true sacrifice, in the general, as follows: “A true sacrifice is any work done to keep up our league of amity with God, referred to him as our sovereign good, in whom we may enjoy true felicity.”*  I follow his sense, rather than the strict letter, to make it the clearer to an English reader.  St. Austin here judged it necessary for every such good work to be performed with a view to God, to be referred to his glory; otherwise it could not with any propriety be called a sacrifice to him: therefore even works of mercy done to man, out of compassion, tenderness, or humanity, though true sacrifices if considered as done with a view to God, would be no sacrifice at all, if they wanted that circumstance to recommend them.**  From hence we may see what that Father’s general notion of a true sacrifice was.  He takes notice further, that what had been commonly called sacrifice, is really nothing more than an outward sign, token, or symbol of true sacrifice.***  The distinction here made may afford great light as to the meaning of the ancients, where they denominate the Eucharist a sacrifice, or a true and perfect sacrifice.  They meant, for the most part, that it was true and evangelical service, as opposed to legal: in that sense, the eucharistic service was itself true sacrifice, and properly our sacrifice.  And if, over and above, the elements themselves, unconsecrated, were ever called a sacrifice, or sacrifices, the meaning still was, that the service was the sacrifice: but when the consecrated elements had that name, it was only a metonymy of the sign for the thing signified, as they represent, and in effect exhibit, the grand sacrifice of the cross.

         *[Verum sacrificium est omne opus quod agitur ut sancta societate inhaereamus Deo, relatum scilicet ad illum finem boni, quo veraciter beati esse possimus. Augustin. de Civit. Dei, lib. x. cap. 6. p. 242.]

         **[Misericordia verum sacrificium est. ... Ipsa misericordia qua homini subvenitur, si propter Deum non fit, non est sacrificium. ... Sacrificium res divina est,etc.  Augustin. ibid.]

         ***[Illud quod ab omnibus appellatur sacrificium, signum est veri sacrificii. Augustin. ibid.  “Nec quod ab antiquis patribus talia sacrificia facta sunt in victimis pecorum (quod nunc Dei populus legit, non facit) aliud intelligendum est, nisi rebus illis eas res fuisse significatas quae aguntur in nobis, in hoc ut adhaereamus Deo, et ad eundem finem proximo consulamus.  Sacrificium ergo visibile, invisibilis sacrificii sacramentum, id est, sacrum signum est. Ibid. cap. 5.]

         It is worth observing that in Scripture style, whatever exhibits any advantage or blessing in larger measure, or in a more eminent degree, is denominated true, in opposition to other things which only appear to do the like, or do it but defectively. [See John 1:4, 9, 17; 4:23–24, 6:32, 15:1.  Luke 16:11.  Heb. 8:2, 9:11, 24.]  In such a sense as that, the Gospel services are the true sacrifices, called also under the Law sacrifices of righteousness.*  I know not how it comes to pass, that moderns generally have reckoned all the spiritual sacrifices among the nominal, improper, metaphorical sacrifices; whereas the ancients judged them to be the truest sacrifices of any, yea, and infinitely more excellent than the other.  If it be said that external, material, symbolical sacrifices had all along engrossed the name of sacrifices, and therefore were the only sacrifices properly so called, as the custom of language is the rule of propriety; it may be replied, on the other hand, that spiritual sacrifices really carry in them all that the other signify or point to, and so, upon the general reason of all sacrifice, have a just, or a more eminent title to that name: and this may be thought as good a rule of propriety, as the custom of language can be.  Suppose, for instance, that sacrifice, in its general nature, means the making a present to the Divine Majesty, as Plato defines it [______ __ _____, _________ ____ ____ _____.  Plato, Enthyphron. p. 10.]; is not the presenting him with our prayers, praises, and good works, as properly making him a present, as the other?  Therefore if the general reason or definition of sacrifice suits as properly (yea, and eminently) with spiritual sacrifices as with any other, I see not why they should not be esteemed proper sacrifices, as well as the other.  However, since this would amount only to a strife about words, it is of no great moment, whether spiritual sacrifices be called proper or improper sacrifices, so long as they are allowed to be true and excellent, and as much to be preferred before the other, as substance before shadow, and truth before sign or figure.  The ancients, I think, looked upon the spiritual sacrifices as true and proper sacrifices, and are so to be understood, whenever they apply the name of sacrifice to the service of the Eucharist.  But to make it a material sacrifice would, in their account, have been degrading and vilifying it, reducing it to a legal ceremony, instead of a Gospel service.

         *[Vera sacrificia sunt ejusmodi sacrificia, quae vere id habent quod caetera habere videntur.  Dicuntur illa, eodem loquendi modo, sacrificia justitiae, id est ______ ________, sacrificia vera.  Intelligitur autem hac phrasi totus cultus Novi Testamenti.”  Vitringa de vet. Synag. p. 65.  Cp. ejusd. Observat. Sacr. tom. ii. p. 499, et in Isa. tom. ii. pp. 56, 733, 829.]

         The service therefore of the Eucharist, on the foot of ancient Church language, is both a true and a proper sacrifice (as I shall shew presently), and the noblest that we are capable of offering, when considered as comprehending under it many true and evangelical sacrifices: 1. The sacrifice of alms to the poor, and oblations to the Church; which when religiously intended, and offered through Christ, is a Gospel sacrifice. [Philippians 4:18.  Hebrews 13:16.  Compare Acts 10:4.  Ecclus. 35:2.]  Not that the material offering is a sacrifice to God, for it goes entirely to the use of man; but the service is what God accepts.  2. The sacrifice of prayer, from a pure heart, is evangelical incense. [Revel. 5:; 8:3–4.  Compare Psalm 141:2.  Malachi 1:11, 3:4–5.  Hos. 14:2.  Acts 10:4.  Ecclus. 35:2.]  3. The sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving to God the Father, through Christ Jesus our Lord, is another Gospel sacrifice. [Heb. 13:15.  1 Peter 2:5, 9.  Compare Psalm 50:14–15, 69:31, 116:17.]  4. The sacrifice of a penitent and contrite heart, even under the Law (and now much more under the Gospel, when explicitly offered through Christ), was a sacrifice of the new covenant [Psalm 4:5, 51:17.  Isa. 1:16, 57:15.]: for the new covenant commenced from the time of the fall, and obtained under the Law, but couched under shadows and figures.  5. The sacrifice of ourselves, our souls and bodies, is another Gospel sacrifice. [Rom. 12:1.  Phil. 2:17.  2 Tim. 4:6.]  6. The offering up the mystical body of Christ, that is, his Church, is another Gospel sacrifice [1 Cor. 10:17.]: or rather, it is coincident with the former; excepting that there persons are considered in their single capacity, and here collectively in a body.  I take the thought from St. Austin, [Augustin. de Civit. Dei, lib. x. cap. vi. p. 243; cap. xx. p. 256.  Epist. lix. alias cxlix. p. 509. edit. Bened.] who grounds it chiefly on 1 Cor. 10:17, and the texts belonging to the former article.  7. The offering up of true converts, or sincere penitents to God by their pastors, who have laboured successfully in the blessed work, is another very acceptable Gospel sacrifice. [Rom. 15:16.  Phil. 2:17.  Compare Isa. 66:20, cum Notis Vitring. p. 950.]  8. The sacrifice of faith and hope, and self-humiliation, in commemorating the grand sacrifice, and resting finally upon it, is another Gospel sacrifice, [This is not said in any single text, but may be clearly collected from many compared.] and eminently proper to the Eucharist.

         These, I think, are all so many true sacrifices, and may all meet together in the one great complicated sacrifice of the Eucharist.  Into some one or more of these may be resolved (as I conceive) all that the ancients have ever taught of Christian sacrifices, or of the Eucharist under the name or notion of a true or proper sacrifice.  Let it be supposed however for the present, in order to give the reader the clearer idea beforehand of what I intend presently to prove.  In the meanwhile, supposing this account to be just, from hence may easily be understood how far the Eucharist is a commemorative sacrifice, or otherwise.  If that phrase means a spiritual service of ours, commemorating the sacrifice of the cross, then it is justly styled a sacrifice commemorative of a sacrifice, and in that sense a commemorative sacrifice: but if that phrase points only to the outward elements representing the sacrifice made by Christ, then it means a sacrifice commemorated, or a representation and commemoration of a sacrifice.*

         *[Nonne semel immolatus est Christus in seipso?  Et tamen in sacramento non solum per omnes paschae solennitates, sed omni die populis immolatur; nec utique mentitur qui, interrogatus, eum responderit immolari.  Si enim sacramenta quandam similitudinem earum rerum, quarum sacramenta sunt, non haberent, omnino sacramenta non essent: ex hac autern similitudine plerumque etiam ipsarum rerum nomina accipiunt.  Sicut ergo, secundum quendam modum, sacramentum corporis Christi corpus Christi est, sacramentum sanguinis Christi sanguis Christi est; ita sacramentum fidei fides est. Augustin. Epist. ad Bonifacium, xcviii. alias xxiii. p. 267. ed. Bened.]

         From hence likewise may we understand in what sense the officiating authorized ministers perform the office of proper evangelical priests in this service.  They do it three ways: 1. As commemorating, in solemn form, the same sacrifice here below, which Christ our High Priest commemorates above.  2. As handing up (if I may so speak) those prayers and those services of Christians to Christ our Lord, who as High Priest recommends the same in heaven to God the Father. [Revel. 8:4.  Vid. Vitring. in loc.]  3. As offering up to God all the faithful who are under their care and ministry, and who are sanctified by the Spirit. [Rom. 15:16.]  In these three ways the Christian officers are priests, or liturgs, to very excellent purposes, far above the legal ones, in a sense worth the contending for, and worth the pursuing with the utmost zeal and assiduity.

         Having thus far intimated beforehand what I apprehend to be in the main, or in the general, a just account of the eucharistic sacrifice, upon the principles laid down in Scripture, as interpreted by the ancients: I shall next proceed to examine the ancients one by one, in order to see whether this account tallies with what they have said upon this article.          

         I shall begin with St. Barnabas, supposed, with some probability, to have been the author of the Epistle bearing his name, penned about A.D. 71.  This very early writer, taking notice of the difference between the Law and the Gospel, observes that Christ had abolished the legal sacrifices, to make way for an human oblation:* which he explains soon after, by an humble and contrite heart, referring to Psalm 51:17.  So by human oblation, he means the freewill offering of the heart, as opposed to the yoke of legal observances; the offering up the whole inner man, instead of the outward superficial performances of the Law.  Therefore the Christian sacrifice, as here described by our author, resolves into the 5th article of the account which I have given above.  Mr. Dodwell renders the words of Barnabas thus: “These things therefore he has evacuated, that the new law of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is without any yoke of bondage, might bring in the mystical oblation.” [Dodwell of Incensing, p. 33, etc.]  He conceived the original Greek words (which are lost) might have been [______ _______], reasonable service: which however is merely conjecture.  But he understood the place of Christians offering themselves, their souls and bodies, instead of sacrificing beasts.  Another learned man, who had an hypothesis to serve, understands by human oblation, an offering made with freedom; and he interprets it of the voluntary oblations made by communicants at the altar, viz. the lay oblations. [Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. p. 333, alias 338.]  The interpretation appears somewhat forced, and agrees not well with Barnabas’s own explication superadded, concerning an humble and contrite heart; unless we take in both: however, even upon that supposition, the Christian sacrifice here pointed to will be a spiritual sacrifice, or service, the sacrifice of charitable benevolence, and will fall under article the first, above mentioned.  There have not been wanting some who would wrest the passage so far as to make it favour the sacrifice of the mass: but the learned Pfaffius [Pfaffius de Oblat. vet. Eucharist. sect. xxii. p. 239, etc.] has abundantly confuted every pretense that way, and has also well defended the common construction; which Menardus had before admitted, and which Dodwell also came into, and which I have here recommended.  There is nothing more in Barnabas that relates at all to our purpose, and so we may pass on to other Christian writers in order.

         *[“Haec ergo [sacrificia] vacua fecit, ut nova lex Domini nostri Jesu Christi, quae sine judo necessitatis est, humanam habeat oblationem ... nobis enim dicit, Sacrificium Deo, cor tribulatum, et humiliatum Deus non despicit.”  Barnab. Epist. cap. ii. p. 57.]

         Clemens of Rome has been cited in a chapter above [See above, Chapter I.], as speaking of the lay oblations brought to the altar, and of the sacerdotal oblation afterwards made of the same gifts, previously to the consecration.  No doubt but such lay offerings amounted to spiritual sacrifice, being acceptable service under the Gospel; and they fall under article the first, in the enumeration before given.  I cannot repeat too often, that in such cases the service, the good work, the duty performed is properly the sacrifice, according to the definition of sacrifice in St. Austin* above cited, and according to plain good sense.  When Cornelius’s prayers and alms ascended up for a memorial (a name alluding to the legal incense), it was not his money, nor any material gifts, that ascended, or made the memorial; but it was the piety, the mercy, the beneficence, the virtues of the man.  Under the Gospel, God receives no material thing at all, to be consumed and spent in his own immediate service, and for his honour only: he receives no blood, no libation, no incense, no burnt offerings, no perfumes, as before.  If he receives alms and oblations (as in the Eucharistic service), he receives them not as gifts to himself, to be consumed in his immediate service, but as gifts to be consecrated for the use of man, to whom they go.  All that is material is laid out upon man only; not upon God, as in the Jewish economy.  But God receives, now under the Gospel, our religious services, our good works, our virtuous exercises, in the name of Christ, and these are our truly Christian and spiritual sacrifices.  In this view, the lay oblations, which Clemens refers to, were Christian sacrifices.  So also were the sacerdotal services, referred to by the same Clemens; though in a view somewhat different, and falling under a distinct branch of Gospel sacrifice, reducible to article the seventh in the foregoing recital.  Those who endeavour to construe Clemens’s Ļ________ and ___________ (oblations and sacerdotal ministrations) as favouring the sacrifice of the mass, run altogether wide of the truth; as is, plain from one single reason among many, [The reader may see that whole question discussed at large in Buddaeus, Miscellan. Sacr. tom. 1. pp. 45-49.  Pfaffius de Oblat. vet. Euch. pp. 254–269.] that all which Clemens speaks of was previous to the consecration.  Those also who plead from thence for material oblations, as acceptable under the Gospel, mistake the case: for the material part (as before hinted) goes not to God, is not considered purely as a gift to him, (like the burnt offerings or incense under the Law, consumed in his immediate service,) but as a gift for the use of man; and so nothing remains for God to accept of, as given to him, but the spiritual service; and even that he accepts not of, unless it really answers its name.  So that it is plain that the New Testament admits of none but spiritual sacrifices; because none else are now properly given to God, or accepted by him as so given.

         *[“Omne opus, etc. every good work.  And it is observable that, conformably to such definition, that Father makes Baptism a sacrifice: Holocausto Dominicae passionis, quod eo tempore offert quisque pro peccatis suis, quo ejusdem passionis fide dedicatur, et Christianorum fidelium nomine Baptizatus imbuitur.”  Augustin. ad Roman. Expos. cap. xix. col. 937. tom. iii.]

         Justin Martyr, of the second century, is so clear and so express upon the subject of Gospel sacrifice, that one need not desire any fuller light than he will furnish us with.  The sum of his doctrine is, that prayers and praises, and universal obedience, are the only Christian sacrifices: from whence it most evidently follows, that whenever he gives the name of oblation, or sacrifice, to the Eucharist, his whole meaning is, that it is a religious service comprehending prayers, praises, etc., and therefore has a just title to the name of Christian oblation and sacrifice.  But let us examine the passages.

         He writes thus: “We have been taught, that God has no need of any material oblation from men; well knowing, that he is the giver of all things: but we are informed, and persuaded, and do believe, that he accepts those only who copy after his moral perfections, purity, righteousness, philanthropy,”* etc.  Here we may observe that God accepts not, according to our author, any material oblation at all, considered as a gift to him, nor anything but what is spiritual, as all religious services, and all virtuous exercises really are: those are the Gospel oblations according to Justin, here and everywhere.  A few pages after, he takes notice “that God has no need of blood, libations, or incense, but that the Christian manner was, to offer him prayers and thanksgivings for all the blessings they enjoy, to the utmost of their power: that the only way of paying him honour suitable, was not to consume by fire what he had given for our sustenance, but to spend it upon ourselves, and upon the poor, and to render him the tribute of our grateful hymns and praises,”** etc.

         *[___’ __ _______ ___ Ļ___ _____Ļ__ ______ Ļ________ Ļ____________ ___ ____, _____ Ļ________ Ļ____ ________  ________ __ Ļ___________ _____ _____ ___________, ___ Ļ_Ļ_______, ____ __ Ļ_______ ____ _____ ___________, __________, ___ ___________, ___ ________Ļ___, ___ ___ ______ ___ ____.  Just. Mart. Apol. i. p. 14. edit. Lond.]

         **[_______ _______ ___ _Ļ_____ ___ __________ ... ________, ____ _____ ___ ___________ __ ___ Ļ___________ Ļ____ ___ _______ __________ _____ _____ _____ _____ ______ Ļ___________, __ __ _Ļ _______ ___ _________ ________, __ Ļ___ __Ļ____, ___’ _______ ___ ____ _________ Ļ_________, ______ __ ___________ _____ ___ _____ Ļ__Ļ__ ___ ______ Ļ__Ļ___.  _. _. _.  Just. Mart. ibid. p. 19.]

         Here we may note how exactly he points out the difference between other sacrifices (Pagan or Jewish) and the sacrifices of the Gospel.  In those there was something spent, as it were, immediately upon God, entirely lost, wasted, consumed, because considered as a gift to God only; which is the proper notion of a material sacrifice: but in these, nothing is entirely spent, or consumed, but all goes to the use of man; only the praise, the glory, the tribute of homage and service, that is given to God, and that he accepts, as a proper sacrifice, and as most suitable to his Divine Majesty.  Not that he needs even these, or can be benefited by them: but he takes delight in the exercise of his own philanthropy, which has so much the larger field to move in, according as his creatures render themselves fit objects of it by acts of religion and virtue.  But I proceed with our author.

         In another place he expressly teaches that “prayers and thanksgivings, made by them that are worthy, are the only perfect and acceptable sacrifices”; adding, that “those only are offered in the eucharistic commemoration.”*  It is observable that by the restriction to the worthy, he supposes a good life to go along with prayers and praises to make them acceptable sacrifice, conformably to what he had before taught, as above recited.  Indeed, prayers and praises are most directly, immediately, emphatically sacrifice, as a tribute offered to God only: which is the reason why Justin and other Fathers speak of them in the first place, as the proper or primary sacrifices of Christians.  Obedience is sacrifice also, as it respects God; but it may have another aspect towards ourselves, or other men, and therefore is not so directly a sacrifice to God alone.  This distinction is well illustrated by a judicious Divine of our own, [Bishop Lany’s Sermon on Heb. 13:15. pp. 30–32.] whose words I may here borrow: “The sacrifice of obedience is metaphorical: that is, God accepts it as well as if it had been a sacrifice; that is, something given to himself: but the sacrifice of praise is proper, without a metaphor.**  The nature of it accomplished by offering something to God, in acknowledgment of him. ... The honour which God receives from our obedience, differs from that of a sacrifice; for that is only of consequence, and by argumentation: that is, it suits with the nature and will of God; as we say, good servants are an honour to their masters, by reflection.  But the honour by sacrifice is of direct and special intendment: it hath no other use, and is a distinct virtue from all other acts of obedience, and of a different obligation. ... Though God hath the honour of obedience and a virtuous life; if we deny him the honour of a sacrifice besides, we rob him of his due, and a greater sacrilege we cannot commit. ... This is robbing God of the service itself, to which the other, dedicated for his service, are but accessary.”  Thus far Bishop Lany to the point in hand. I return to Justin Martyr.

         *[___ ___ ___ ___ _____ ___ ___________ _Ļ_ ___ _____ _________, _______ _____ ___ _________ ____ __ ___ ______, ___ _____ ____.  _____ ___ ____ ___ __________ Ļ________ Ļ_____, ___ _Ļ’ _________ __ ___ ______ _____ _____ __ ___ _____.  Justin. Dial. p. 387.]

         **[Note, this very acute and knowing Divine had not learned to call every spiritual sacrifice a metaphorical sacrifice: for he admits of prayers and praises, and the like religious services, as true and proper sacrifices.  I conceive further that even obedience, formally considered as respecting God, and as a tribute offered to him (though it has other views besides, in which it is no sacrifice at all) is as properly sacrifice as the other: and so judged St. Austin above cited.]

         We have seen how uniform and constant this early Christian writer was, with respect to the general doctrine concerning Gospel sacrifices, as being spiritual sacrifices, and no other.  Nothing more remains but to consider how to reconcile that general doctrine with the particular doctrine taught by the same writer concerning the Eucharist, as a sacrifice.  He makes mention of the legal offering of fine flour, or meal offering, as a type of the bread of the Eucharist [Justin. Mart. Dial. p. 220.]: and a little after, citing a noted place of the Prophet Malachi, he interprets the pure offering, the mincha, or bread offering there predicted, of the bread eucharistic, and likewise of wine,* denominating them, as it seems, the sacrifices offered by us Gentile Christians.  Does not all this look very like the admitting of material sacrifices under the Gospel?  And how then could he consistently elsewhere exclude all material oblations, and admit none but spiritual sacrifices as belonging to the Christian state?  Mr. Pfaffius, being aware of the appearing difficulty, cuts the knot, instead of untying it, and charges the author with saying and unsaying [Pfaffius de Oblat. vet. Eucharist. pp. 270, 272.]: which perhaps was not respectful enough towards his author, nor prudent for his own cause, unless the case had been desperate, which he had no reason to suspect, so far as I apprehend.  He undertakes afterwards to sum up Justin’s sentiments on this head, and does it in a manlier somewhat perplexed, to this effect: “That the New Testament admits of no sacrifices but prayers, praises, and thanksgivings: but however, if it does admit of anything corresponding, or similar to the legal oblations, it is that of the oblation of bread and wine in the Eucharist.”**  This is leaving the readers much in the dark, and his author to shift for sense and consistency.  At the best, it is dismissing the evidence as doubtful, not determinate enough to give reasonable satisfaction.

         *[____ __ ___ __ Ļ____ __Ļ_ __’ ____ ___ _____ Ļ____________ ____ ______, ________ ___ _____ ___ ___________, ___ ___ Ļ_______ ______ ___ ___________ Ļ_______ ____.  Justin. ibid.]

         **[Ita nempe secum statuit vir sanctus, nulla esse in Novo Testamento sacrificia, quam laudes, gratiarum actiones, et preces; si quid tamen sit quod cum oblationibus Veteris Testamenti conferri queat, esse panem vinumque Eucharistiae, quae altari, seu mensae sacrae imposita, precibusque juxta mandaturn Christi Deo oblata, in Sacramentum corporis sanguinisque Dominici consecrentur.”  Pfaffius, ibid. p. 274.]

         Mr. Dodwell’s account of Justin in this article is no clearer than the former.  He takes notice, that his Father “allows no other sacrifice but that of prayer and Eucharist;” he should have said, thanksgiving: and soon after he adds in the same page; “elsewhere he owns no acceptable sacrifice under the Gospel, but the Eucharist; in opposition to the Jewish sacrifices, which were consumed by fire, and which were confined to Jerusalem.”  [Dodwell on Incensing, p. 46.]  Still, here is no account given how Justin could reject all material sacrifice, and yet consistently admit of the Eucharist as a sacrifice, if that be a material and not a spiritual oblation.  The most that Mr. Dodwell’s solution can amount to is, that Justin did not absolutely reject material sacrifices, provided they were not to be consumed by fire, or provided (as he hints in another work [Dodwell’s One Altar, pp. 203, 204.]) that they are but purely eucharistic.  But this solution will never account for Justin’s so expressly and fully excluding all material oblations, and so particularly restraining the notion of Gospel sacrifices to prayers, praises, and good works.

         Some learned men think that a material sacrifice may yet be called a rational and spiritual sacrifice [Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. p. 18, etc.]: and therefore, though the Fathers do expressly reject material sacrifices, they mean only sacrifices of a certain kind; and though they admit none but spiritual sacrifices, they might yet tacitly except such material sacrifices as are spiritual also.  But this appears to be a very harsh solution, and such as would go near to confound all language.  However, most certainly, it ought never to be admitted, if any clearer or more just solution can be thought on, as I am persuaded there may.

         Justin’s principles, if rightly considered, hang well together, and are all of a piece.  He rejects all material sacrifices absolutely: and though the Eucharist be a sacrifice, according to him, yet it is not the matter of it, viz. the bread and wine, that is properly the sacrifice, but it is the service only, and that is a spiritual sacrifice.  Alms are a Gospel sacrifice, according to St. Paul: not the material alms, but the exercise of charity, that is the sacrifice.  In like manner, the Eucharist is a Gospel sacrifice.  Not the material symbols, but the service, consisting of a prayer, praise, contrite hearts, self-humiliation, etc.  Well, but may not the like be said of all the legal sacrifices, that there also the service was distinct from the matter, and so those also were spiritual sacrifices?  No: the circumstances were widely different. In the legal sacrifices, either the whole or some part of the offering was directly given to God,* and either consumed by fire, or poured forth, never returning to the use of man: and thereupon was founded the gross notion, of which God by his Prophets more than once complains, [Psalm 50:12–13.  Isaiah 1:11.  Mic. 6:6–7.] as if the Deity had need of such things, or took delight in them.  But now, under the Gospel, nothing is so given to God, nothing consumed in his immediate service: we present his gifts and his creatures before him, and we take them back again for the use of ourselves and of our brethren.  All that we really give up to God as his tribute, are our thanks, our praises, our acknowledgments, our homage, our selves, our souls and bodies; which is all spiritual sacrifice, purely spiritual: and herein lies the main difference between the Law and the Gospel. [See Mr. Lewis’s Answer to Unbloody Sacrifice, pp. 2, 5, 11.]  We have no material sacrifices at all.  The matter of the Eucharist is sacramental, and the bread and wine are signs: yea, signs of a sacrifice, that is of the sacrifice of the cross: but as to any sacrifice of ours, it lies entirely in the service we perform, and in the qualifications or dispositions which we bring, which are all so much spiritual oblation, or spiritual sacrifice, and nothing else.

         *[Some have thought the paschal sacrifice to make an exception, because it was all to be eaten.  But it is certain that one part, viz. the blood, was to be poured forth, and sprinkled, 2 Chron. 30:16, 35:11, yea and offered unto God, Exod. 23:18, 34:25, as belonging of right to him: and those who are best skilled in Jewish antiquities, think that the inwards, or fat, was to be burnt upon the altar.  See Reland, Antiq. Hebr. p. 383.  Deylingius, Observ. Sacr. tom. iii. p. 332.  Cudworth on the Lord’s Supper, p. 3. fol. ed.]

         From hence may be perceived how consistent and uniform this early Father was in his whole doctrine on that head.  He expressed himself very accurately when, speaking of spiritual and perfect sacrifices, he said, that they were what Christians offered over, or upon the eucharistic commemoration:* that is, they spiritually sacrificed in the service of the Eucharist.  They did not make the material elements their sacrifice, but the signs only of a greater.  Their service they offered up to God as his tribute; but the elements they took entirely to themselves.  When he speaks of the sacrifices of bread and wine,** he may reasonably be understood to mean, the spiritual sacrifices of lauds, or of charity, which went along with the solemn feasting upon the bread and wine; and not that the elements themselves were sacrifices.***  Upon the whole therefore, I take this blessed martyr to have been consistent throughout in his doctrine of spiritual sacrifices, as being the only sacrifices prescribed, or allowed by the Gospel.  And if he judged the Eucharist to be (as indeed he did) a most acceptable sacrifice, it was because he supposed it to comprise many sacrifices in one; a right faith, and clean heart, and devout affections, breaking forth in fervent prayers, praises, and thanksgivings unto God, and charitable contributions to the brethren.

         *[_____ ___ ____ ___ __________ Ļ________ Ļ_____ ___ _Ļ’ _________ __ ___ ______ _____ _____ __ ___ _____.  Dial. p. 387.  ______ ... _Ļ_ __ __________ ___ _____ ___ ___ Ļ_______ ... _________.  Dial. p. 386.]

         **[_____________ ____ ______, ________ ___ _____ ___ ___________ ___ ___ Ļ_______.  Dial. p. 220.]

         ***[It may be suggested (see Johnson, part i. p. 271) that the word _________, memorial, was used in relation to the show bread, Levit. 24:7, a type of the Eucharist.  But it is observable, that the show bread was not the memorial; but the incense burnt upon it, that was the memorial, as the text expressly says.  Now it is well known, that prayers, lauds, etc. are the evangelical incense, succeeding in the room of the legal: therefore, to make everything correspond, the spiritual services of the Eucharist are properly our memorial, our incense, and not the material elements.]

         Athenagoras may come next, who has not much to our purpose: but yet something he has.  He observes that “God needs no blood, nor fat, nor sweet scents of flowers, nor incense, being himself the most delightful perfume: but the noblest sacrifice in his sight, is to understand his works and ways, and to lift up holy hands to him.”*  A little after he adds, “What should I do with burnt offerings, which God has no need of?  But it is meet to offer him an unbloody sacrifice, and to bring him a rational service.”**  Here we see what the proper Christian sacrifices are, namely, the spiritual sacrifices of devout prayers, and obedience of heart and life.  The service is, with this writer, the sacrifice.  He takes notice of God’s not needing burnt offerings, and the like.  All material sacrifices considered as gifts to God, were apt to insinuate some such idea to weak minds: but the spiritual services do not.  In our eucharistic solemnity we consider not the elements, when presented before God, as properly our gifts to him, but as his gifts to us*** which, we pray, may be consecrated to our spiritual uses.  We pay our acknowledgments for them at the same time: and that makes one part, the smallest part, of our spiritual sacrifice, or service, in that solemnity.  It may be worth noting, that here in Athenagoras we find the first mention of unbloody sacrifice, which he makes equivalent to reasonable service: and he applies it not particularly to the Eucharist, but to spiritual sacrifices at large.  An argument, that when it came afterwards to be applied to the Eucharist, it still carried the same meaning, and was chosen with a view to the spiritual services contained in it, and not to the material oblation, or oblations, considered as such.

         *[_____ ____ _______, __ __________ ___ ________, _. _ ._., ___ _Ļ_______ ______ ______ ____.  Athenag. p. 48, 49.  ed. Oxon.]

         **[__ __ ___ ____________, __ __ ______ _ ____; ___ ___ Ļ_________ ____ __________ ______, ___ ___ _______ Ļ________ ________.  Athenag. p. 49.]

         ***[Hence came the usual phrase, so frequent in liturgical Offices, __ __ __ ___ ___ _____ ___ Ļ__________, We present unto thee the things that are thine out of thy own gifts: that is, by way of acknowledgment.  See the testimonies collected in Deylingius, Observat. Miscellan. pp. 201, 312.]

         Irenaeus, of the same time, will afford us still greater light, with regard to the point in hand.  He is very large and diffuse upon the distinction between the typical sacrifices of the Law, [“Per sacrificia autem et reliquas typicas observantias, putantes propitiari Deum, dicebat eis Samuel,” etc. Iren. lib. iv, cap. 17. p. 247. edit. Bened.] and the true sacrifices of the Gospel.*  He seems to mean by typical there the same that St. Austin, before cited, meant by signs.  Those external sacrifices were symbols, tokens, pledges of the true homage, or true sacrifice; which Irenaeus interprets of a contrite heart, faith, obedience, righteousness, [Non sacrificia et holocaustomata quaerebat ab eis Deus, sed fidem, et obedientiarn, et justitiam, propter illorum salutem. Ibid. p. 249.] etc. referring to several texts [1 Sam. 15:22.  Psalm 50:14; 17.  Isa. 1:16–17.  Jer. 7:22–23.  Hos. 6:6.   Philip. 4:18.] of the Old Testament and New, which recommend true goodness as the acceptable sacrifice.  He understands the Gospel incense, spoken of in Malachi, [Malachi 1:11.] of the prayers of the saints, [In omni loco incensum offertur nomini meo, et sacrificium purum.  Incensa autem Joannes in Apocalypsi orationes esse ait sanctorum. Iren. lib. iv. c. 17. p. 249.] according to Rev. 5:8.  He makes mention also of an altar in heaven, to which the prayers and oblations of the Church are supposed to ascend, and on which they are conceived to be offered by our great High Priest to God the Father. [Est ergo altare in caelis (illic enim preces nostrae et oblationes diriguntur) et templum; quemadmodum Joannes in Apocalypsi ait, Et apertum est templum Dei.”  Iren. ibid.]  The thought, very probably, was taken from the golden altar mentioned in the Apocalypse, [Rev. 8:3, 5.  Vid. Vitringa in loc.  Dodwell on Incensing, pp. 39–44.] and represented as bearing the mystical incense.  The notion of a mystical altar in heaven became very frequent in the Christian writers after Irenaeus,** and was in process of time taken into most of the old Liturgies, Greek, Latin, and Oriental; as is well known to as many as are at all conversant in them.  The notion was not new: for the Old Testament speaks of prayers, as coming up to God’s holy dwelling place, even to heaven [2 Chron. 30:27.  Compare Tobit 3:16, 12:12.  Wisd. 9:8.] and the New Testament follows the same figure of speech, applying it both to prayers and alms-deeds, in the case of Cornelius. [Acts 10:4.]

         *[Verum sacrificium insinuans, quod offerentes propitiabuntur Deum, ut ab eo vitam percipiant: quemadmodum alibi ait; Sacrificium Deo cor tribulatiun, odor suavitatis Deo, cor clarificans eum qui plasmavit. Ibid. p. 248.]

         **[ Clemens Alex. p. 209.  Origen. Hom. in Joan. 17. p. 438.  Gregor. Nazianz. vol. i. pp. 31, 484, 692.  Chrysostom. in Heb. Hom. xi. p. 807.  Cyrill. Alex. de Adorat. lib. ix. p. 310.  Apostol. Constitut. lib. viii. cap. 13.  Augustin. Serm. 351.  de Poenit. p. 1357. tom. v.]

         Irenaeus, as I have observed, understood the incense, mentioned in the Prophet, of the evangelical sacrifice of prayer: but then it is to be further noted, that he distinguished between the incense and the pure offering, and so understood the latter of something else.  He understood it of the alms or oblations that went along with the prayers; referring to St. Paul’s doctrine, in Phil. 4:18, which recommends charitable contributions, as “an odor of a sweet smell, a sacrifice acceptable, well pleasing to God;” as also to Proverbs 19:17, “He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the Lord.” [Irenaeus, lib. iv. cap. 18. p. 251.]  Such were the pure offerings of the Church, in Irenaeus’s account; and they were spiritual sacrifices: for it is the service, not the material offering, which God accepts in such cases, as Irenaeus himself has plainly intimated.*  It must be owned that Irenaeus does speak of the eucharistic oblations under the notion of presents brought to the altar, offered up to God, for the agnizing him as Creator of the world, and as the giver of all good things, and for a testimony of our love and gratitude towards him on that score.**  This he calls a pure sacrifice,*** present, offering, and the like: and since the bread and wine so offered were certainly material, how shall we distinguish the sacrifice he speaks of from a material sacrifice, or how can we call it a spiritual sacrifice A learned foreigner, being aware of the seeming repugnancy, has endeavoured to reconcile the author to himself, by saying, that the eucharistic oblation may still be reckoned a spiritual sacrifice, on account of the prayers, lauds, and offerings going along with it, which are spiritual services.****  Another learned gentleman observes, that according to Irenaeus, the very life and soul of the new oblation rests in the prayers by which it is offered up, and which finish or perfect the spiritual oblation.*****  The solution appears to be just, so far as it goes: but I would take leave to add to it, that the material offering, in this case, is not properly a present made to God, though brought before him: for it is not consumed (like a burnt offering) in God’s immediate service, nor any part of it, but it goes entire to the use of man, not so much as any particle of it separated for God’s portion, as in the legal sacrifices. [See above in Chapter VII.]  Therefore the material offering is not the sacrifice; but the communicant’s agnizing the Creator by it; that is properly sacrifice, and spiritual sacrifice, of the same nature with lauds. I may add further, that those eucharistic oblations were, in Irenaeus’s account, contributions to the Church and to the poor, as is plain by his referring to Prov. xix. 17, and Phil. iv. 18, which I noted before: and therefore he looked upon them as evangelical and spiritual sacrifices, falling under article the first of the recital given above. For it is not the matter of the contributions which constitutes the sacrifice, but it is the exercise of benevolence, and that is spiritual, and what God accepts. Under the Law, God accepted the external sacrifice, the material offering, as to legal effect: but under the Gospel, he accepts of nothing as to any salutary effect at all, but the spiritual service. This is the new oblation, the only one that is any way acceptable under the Gospel, being made spirit and in truth.

         *[“Qui enim nullius indigens est Deus, in se assumit bonas operationes nostras, ad hoc ut praestet nobis retributionem bonorum suorum.”  Iren. ibid. p. 251.]

         **[Suis discipulis dans consilium, primitias Deo offerre ex suis creaturis, non quasi indigenti, sed ut ipsi nec infructuosi nec ingrati sint, eum qui ex creatura panis est accepit, et gratias egit, etc. ... Novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens, in universo mundo offert Deo, ei qui alimenta nobis praestat, primitias suorum munerum in Novo Testamento,” etc.  Irenaeus, lib. iv. cap. 17. p. 249.]

         ***[Ecclesiae oblatio, quam Dominus docuit offerri in universo mundo, purum sacrificium reputatum est apud Deum, et acceptum est ei: non quod indigeat a nobis sacrificium, 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, praedicavit, dicens, Cum igitur offers munus tuum ad altare,etc.  Irenaeus, lib. iv. cap. 18. p. 250.]

         ****[Non satis sibi constare videtur Irenaeus, qui de sacrificiis spiritualibus antea locutus erat, deque iis acceperat vaticinium Malachiae, quod nunc contra ad oblationes istas eucharisticas trahere videtur.  At belle cuncta se habent, si observemus et ipsam Eucharistiam ratione precum et gratiarum actionis, quae eam comitari solet, et oblationes quoque istas, quas cum Eucharistia conjungere moris erat, suum itidem locum inter sacrificia spiritualia promereri. Buddaeus, Miscellan. Sacr. tom. i. pp. 59, 60.]

         *****[Ex quibus patet animam oblationis novae, quae in Nov. Test. juxta Irenaeum fit, et a Christo instituta est, esse preces queis dona offeruntur. ... Accedentibus precibus, quibus nomen Dei glorificatur, ipsi gratiae redduntur, donorumque sanctificatio expetitur, perficitur utique spiritualis illa atque eucharistica oblatio. Pfaffius in Irenaei Fragm. p. 57.]

         Some perhaps may object, that such spiritual oblation cannot justly be called new, since it was mentioned by the Prophets, and is as old as David at least, who speaks of the sacrifice of a contrite heart, and the like. [See Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. p. 264, alias 268.]  All which is very certain, but foreign to the point in hand.  For let it be considered, 1. That the new covenant is really as old as Adam, and yet is justly called new.  2. That though spiritual sacrifices were always the most acceptable sacrifices, yet God did accept even of material sacrifices, under the Mosaic economy, as to legal effect; and so it was a new thing to put an end to such legal ordinances.  3. That when spiritual sacrifices obtained (as they all along did) under the Law, yet they obtained under veils, covers, or symbols; and so it was a new thing to accept of them, under the Gospel, stripped of all their covers and external signatures.  4. The Gospel sacrifices are offered in, by, and through Christ, expressly and explicitly; and so the spiritual sacrifices of the Gospel are offered in a new way, and under a new form.*  These considerations appear sufficient to justify Irenaeus’s calling the Christian oblation a new oblation: or it may be added, that new light, new force, and new degrees of perfection have been brought in by the Gospel to every part or branch both of speculative and practical religion.

         *[“By him we are to offer: it is his merit and mediation that crowns the sacrifice. ... This by him gives the characteristic difference of the Christian sacrifice from all others: for, otherwise, the sacrifice of praise was common to all times before and under the Law.  You find in many Psalms a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, but in none of them by him, in Christ’s name.  Hitherto ye have asked nothing in my name, says our Saviour; but hereafter his name will give virtue and efficacy to all our services: and therefore, to gain so gracious an advocate with the Father, our prayers and supplications are in the Liturgy offered up in his name, concluding always, by the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ.”  Bishop Lany’s Sermon on Heb. 13:15. pp. 13–14.]

         I pass on to Clemens of Alexandria.  He maintains constantly, under some variety of expression, that spiritual sacrifices are the only Christian sacrifices.  To the question, what sacrifice is most acceptable to God? he makes answer in the words of the Psalmist, “a contrite heart”.  He goes on to say: “How then shall I crown, or anoint, or what incense shall I offer unto the Lord?  A heart that glorifies its Maker is a sacrifice of sweet odor unto God: these are the garlands, and sacrifices, and spices and flowers for God.” [Clemens Alex. Paedag. lib. iii. c. 12. p. 306.  Cp. Strom. lib. ii. pp. 369, 370.]  In another place, condemning the luxury of perfumes, he starts an objection, viz. that Christ our High Priest may be thought perhaps to offer incense, or perfumes, above: an objection grounded probably, either upon what the typical high priest did under the Law [Exod. 30:7.], or upon what is intimated of Christ himself under the Gospel [Rev. 5:8, 8:3.  Cp. Vitring. in loc.]: to which Clemens replies, that our Lord offers no such perfume there, but what he does offer above is the spiritual perfume of charity. [__ ___ ___Ļ__ ______ _________ ___ ______, ___ Ļ__________ _______, ___ __ ____________, etc.  Clem. Alex. Paedag. lib. ii. cap. 8. p. 209.]  He alluded, as it seems, to our Lord’s philanthropy, in giving himself a sacrifice for mankind; unless we choose to understand it of our Lord’s recommending the charity of his saints and servants at the high altar in heaven.  Clemens elsewhere reckons up meekness, philanthropy, exalted piety, humility, sound knowledge, among the acceptable sacrifices, [__ ___ ___ ____ ___ _____ ______, ___ Ļ___ ____ _________ ___________ .  Ibid. p. 849.] as they amount to sacrificing the old man, with the lusts and passions: to which he adds also the offering up our own selves; thereby glorifying him who was sacrificed for us.  Such were this author’s sentiments of the Christian sacrifices: he looked upon the Church itself as the altar here below, the collective body of Christians, sending up the sacrifice of prayer to heaven, with united voices: the best and holiest sacrifice of all, if sent up in righteousness. [_____ __ ______ _____, ___ _______ _____.  p. 848.  Cp. Augustin. de Civit. Dei, lib. x. cap. 4.]  He speaks slightly of the legal sacrifices, as being symbols only of evangelical righteousness. [Ibid. p. 848.]  He makes the just soul to be a holy altar: and as to the sacrifice of the Church, it is “speech exhaled from holy souls, while the whole mind is laid open before God, together with the sacrifice.” [_ _____ ___ _________, _____ _Ļ_ ___ _____ _____________, ______Ļ_______ ___ ___ ______, ___ ___ ________ _Ļ____ __ ___.  Clem. Alex. p. 848.]  Elsewhere, the sacrifices of the Christian Gnostic he makes to be prayers, and lauds, and reading of Scripture, and psalms, and anthems. [______ ___ ____, _____ __ ___ _____, ___ Ļ__ ___ _________ _________ ___ ______, ______ __ ___ _____, etc.  Strom. vii. pp. 860, 861.]  Such were Clemens’s general principles, in relation to Gospel sacrifices.  He has not directly applied them to the particular instance of the Eucharist; though we may reasonably do it for him, upon probable presumption.  It is manifest that he could not consistently own it for a sacrifice of ours, in any other view but as a service carrying in it such spiritual sacrifices as he has mentioned: in that view, it might be upon his principles a noble sacrifice, yea, a combination of sacrifices.

         Tertullian may come next, a very considerable writer, who has a great deal to our purpose: I shall select what may suffice to shew his sentiments of the Christian sacrifices.  Giving some account of them to the Pagans, in his famous Apology, he expresses himself thus: “I offer unto God a fatter and nobler sacrifice, which himself hath commanded; viz. prayer sent out from a chaste body, an innocent soul, and a sanctified spirit: not worthless grains of frankincense, the tears of an Arabian tree,”* etc.  I shall only observe that if Tertullian had understood the material elements of the Eucharist to be a sacrifice, how easy might it have been to retort upon him the worthless grains of wheat, and the like.  But he had no such thought.  Prayer and a good life were his sacrifice: and a noble one they are.  In another place of his works, he says; “We sacrifice indeed, but it is with pure prayer, as God has commanded; for God, the Creator of the universe, hath no need of any incense, or blood.” [Sacrificamus ... sed quomodo Deus praecepit, pura prece: non enim egit Deus, conditor universitatis, odoris, aut sauguinis alicujus. Tertull. ad Scap. cap. ii. p. 69.  Rigalt.]  How obvious might it have been to retort, that God has no need of bread or wine, had that been the Christian sacrifice: but Tertullian knew better; and still he rests it upon pure prayer, that is, prayer together with a good mind.  Let us hear him again: “That we ought not to offer unto God earthly, but spiritual sacrifices, we may learn from what is written, The sacrifice of God is an humble and contrite spirit: and elsewhere, Offer unto God the sacrifice of thanksgiving, and pay thy vows unto the Most High.  So then, the spiritual sacrifices of praise are here pointed to, and a troubled spirit is declared to be the acceptable sacrifice unto God.”**  What Justin Martyr rejected as material sacrifice, our author here rejects under the name of earthly, or terrene.  Are not bread and wine both of them terrene?  Therefore he .thought not of them, but of something spiritual: and he has named what; viz. lauds and thanksgivings, and discharge of sacred vows, an from an humble and contrite heart: these were the acceptable sacrifices, in his account.  He goes on, in the same place, to quote Isaiah against carnal sacrifices, and Malachi also, to shew that spiritual sacrifices are established. [Tertull. adv. Jud. cap. v. p. 188.]  In his treatise against Marcion, he again refers to the Prophet Malachi, interpreting the pure offering there mentioned, not of any material oblation, but of hearty prayer from a pure conscience [Sacrificium mundum: scilicet simplex oratio de conscientia pura. Tertull. contr. Marc. lib. iv. cap. I. p. 414.]; and elsewhere, of giving glory, and blessing, and lauds, and hymns. [Sacrificium mundum: gloriae scilicet relatio, et benedictio, et laus, et hymni. Adv. Marc. lib. iii. cap. 22. p. 410.]  Which, by the way, may serve for a comment upon Justin and Irenaeus, as to their applying that passage of Malachi to the Eucharist: they might do it, because the spiritual sacrifices here mentioned by Tertullian make a great part of the service. It would have been very improper to interpret one part of spiritual service, viz. of prayer, and the other of a material loaf. In another treatise, Tertullian numbers up among the acceptable sacrifices, conflicts of soul, fastings, watchings, and abstemiousness, with their mortifying appurtenances. [Sacrificia Deo grata: conflictationes dico animae, jejunia, seras et aridas escas, et appendices hujus officii sordes. De Resurrect. Carn. cap. viii. p. 330.]  But besides all this, there is, if I mistake not, in the latter part of his Book of Prayer (published by Muratorius, A.D. 1713) a large and full description of the eucharistic sacrifice, which will be worth the transcribing at length.  After recommending the use of psalmody along with prayers, and the making responses in the public service, he then declares that such kind of prayer, so saturated with psalmody, is like a well fed sacrifice: but it is of the spiritual kind, such as succeeded in the room of all the legal sacrifices.  Then referring to Isaiah 1:11, to shew the comparative meanness of the Jewish sacrifices, and to John 4:23, for the right understanding the evangelical, he proceeds thus: “We are the true worshippers and the true priests, who worshipping in spirit, do in spirit sacrifice prayer, suitable to God and acceptable; such as he has required, and such as he has provided for himself.  This is what we ought to bring to God’s altar [by way of sacrifice] devoted from the whole heart, fed with faith, decked with truth, by innocence made entire, and clean by chastity, crowned with a feast of charity, attended with a train of good works, amidst the acclamations of psalms and anthems.”***  The reader will here observe, how the author most elegantly describes the Christian and spiritual sacrifice of prayer, in phrases borrowed from material sacrifices; with an heifer, or bullock in his mind, led up to the altar to be sacrificed: and his epithets are all chosen, as the editor has justly observed, so as to answer that figure.****  But what I am principally to note is, that this was really intended for a description of the eucharistic sacrifice: which is plain from the circumstances: [Quorum clausulis respondeant, qui simul sunt.]  1. From his speaking of the public psalmody, as going along with it In, and the responses made by the assembly.  2. From the mention made of God’s altar.  3. And principally, from what he says of the feast of charity, which is known to have been connected with the service of the Eucharist, or to have been an appendage to it, [See Bingham, book xv. chap. 7. sect. 7, 8.  Suicer. Thesaur. tom. i. p. 26.] at that time; for which reason, that service may very properly be said to have been crowned with it.  These circumstances sufficiently shew, that Tertullian had the Communion Service in his mind, and that was the sacrifice which be there chose to describe; a complicated sacrifice, consisting of many articles, and all of them spiritual, but all summed up in a right faith, pure worship, and good life.  Such is the Christian sacrifice; and such we ought to bring constantly to the Lord’s table, to the holy and mystical altar.

         *[Offero ei opimam et majorem hostiam, quam ipse madavit; orationem de carne pudica, de anima innocenti, de spiritu sancto profectam: non grana thuris unius assis, Arabicae arboris lacrymas, etc.  Tertull. Apol. cap. xxx. p. 277. edit. Havercamp.]

         **[Namque, quod non terrenis sacrificiis, sed spiritalibus, Deo litandum sit, ita legimus ut scriptum est, Cor contribulatum et humiliatum hostia Deo est.  Et alibi, Sacrifica Deo sacrificium laudis, et redde Altissimo vota tua.  Sic igitur sacrificia spiritalia laudis designantur, et cor contribulatum acceptabile sacrificium Deo demonstrator. Tertull. adv. Jud. cap. v. p. 188.]

         ***[Diligentiores in orando subjungere in orationibus Alleluia solent, et hoc genus Psalmos, quorum clausulis respondeant, qui simul sunt: et est optimum utique institutum omne, quod proponendo et honorando Deo competit, saturatam orationem, velut optimam [opimam] hostiam admovere.  Haec est enim hostia spiritalis, quae pristina sacrificia delevit.  Quo mihi, inquit, multitudinem sacrificiorum vestrorum? ... Quae ergo quaesierit Deus, Evangelium docet: Veniet hora, inquit, cum veri adoratores adorabunt Patrem in spiritu et veritate; Deus enim Spiritus est, et adoratores itaque tales requirit.  Nos sumus veri adoratores, et veri sacerdotes, qui Spititu orantes, Spiritu sacrificamus orationem Dei propriam et acceptabilem, quam scilicet requisivit, quam sibi prospexit.  Hanc de toto corde devotam, fide pastam, veritate curatam, innocentia integram, castitate mundam, agape coronatam, cum pompa, bonorum operum inter psalmos et hymnos deducere ad Dei altare debemus. Tertull. de Orat. cap. xxvii., xxviii. pp. 52, 53.  edit. Murator.]

         ****[Orationi, quam hostiam spiritalem appellat, singula tribuit, quae victimis carneis conveniebant, nimirum ut de toto corde voveatur Deo, ut sit pasta, curata, integra, munda, coronata. Muratorius in Notis, p. 53.]

         To the same purpose speaks Minucius Felix, not long after Tertullian.  The only gifts proper to be offered to God by Christians, are Christian services, Christian virtues, according to his account.*  To offer him anything else, is throwing him back his own gifts, not presenting him with anything of ours.  What could Minucius therefore have thought of offering him bread and wine, if considered as gifts or sacrifices to God?  It is manifest, that be must have understood the service, not the elements, to be the Christian gift, and Christian sacrifice.

         *[Hostias et victimas Domino offeram, quas in usum mei protulit, ut rejiciam ei suum munus?  Ingratum est: cum sit litabilis hostia bonus animus, et pura mens, et sincera conscientia.  Igitur, qui innocentiam colit, Domino supplicat; qui justitiam, Deo libat; qui fraudibus abstinet, propitiat Deum; qui hominem periculo subripit, opimam victimam caedit.  Haec nostra sacrificia, haec sacra sunt.”  Minuc. Fel. sect. xxxii. p. 183.]

         Origen falls in with the sentiments of the earlier Fathers, as to spiritual sacrifices, and their being the only Gospel sacrifices.  For when Celsus had objected to Christians their want of altars, he replies: “The objector does not consider, that, with us, every good man’s mind is his altar, from whence truly and spiritually the incense of perfume is sent up: viz. prayers from a pure conscience.” *  Then he refers to Rev. 5:8, and to Psalm 141:2.  A little higher up in the same treatise, he speaks of Christians presenting their petitions, sacrifices, and supplications; beseeching Christ, since “he is the propitiation for our sins,” to recommend the same, in quality of High Priest, to the acceptance of God the Father.**  We may here observe, that the altar which he speaks of is spiritual, as well as the sacrifice.  Had he known of any material altar, or material sacrifice (properly so called), among Christians, this was the place for him to have named it.  It is true, the Lord’s table is often called altar in the ancient monuments, and it is a material table: and the alms also and oblations made at the same table, for the use of church and poor, are material, as well as the table.  But the service is spiritual, and that is the sacrifice, there offered: and therefore the table, considered as an altar, an altar for spiritual sacrifice, is a mystical, spiritual altar.  So if a man offers his own body as a sacrifice for the name of Christ upon a scaffold, his body is material, and so is the scaffold also: but nevertheless, the sacrifice is spiritual, and the scaffold, considered as an altar, must be a spiritual altar, to make it answer to the sacrifice, as they are correlates.  This I hint by the way, in order to obviate some wrong constructions, which have been made [See Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. p. 30, alias 31.] of a material table and material elements.  It is true, the table is material, and the elements also material: but so far as one is considered or called an altar, it is spiritual and mystical; and so far as the other are called a sacrifice, they also are spiritual and mystical.  The holy table is called an altar, with regard to the spiritual services, that is, sacrifices sent up from it, and so it is a spiritual altar: then as it bears the symbols of the grand sacrifice applied in this service, and herein feasted upon by every worthy communicant, it is a symbolical or mystical table, answering to the symbolical and mystical banquet.  But I pass on.

         *[___ ____ ___ _____ ___ _____ ____ __ _______ ___ _______ __________, __’ __ ___Ļ__Ļ____ ______ ___ ______ _____ _________, __ Ļ________ _Ļ_ ___________ _______.  Origen. contra Cels. p. 755.]

         **[Ĺ_ Ļ_____ Ļ__________ _____, _________ _____, _______ ____ Ļ___ ___ ________ ____, Ļ__________ __ ________ ___ _____, ___ ___ ______, ___ ___ _________ ____ __ _Ļ_ Ļ___ ___, p. 751.]

         Cyprian, of that age, speaks as highly of spiritual sacrifices as any one before or after him.  For in an epistle written to the confessors in prison, and not permitted to communicate there, he comforts them up in the manner here following: “Neither your religion nor faith can suffer by the hard circumstances you are under, that the priests of God have not the liberty to offer and celebrate the holy sacrifices.  You do celebrate, and you do offer unto God a sacrifice both precious and glorious, and which will much avail you towards your obtaining heavenly rewards.  The holy Scripture says, The sacrifice of God is a broken spirit, a broken and a contrite heart God doth not despise, Psalm 51:17.  This sacrifice you offer to God, this you celebrate without intermission, day and night, being made victims to God, and presenting yourselves as such, holy and unblemished, pursuant to the Apostle’s exhortation, where he says, I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that you present your bodies, etc. Rom. 12:1.  For this is what pleases God: and it is this by which our other services are rendered more worthy, for the engaging the Divine acceptance.  This is the only thing that our devout and dutiful affections can offer under the name of a return for all his great and salutary blessings: for so by the Psalmist says the Spirit of God, What shall I render, etc. Psalm 116:12, 13, 15. Who would not readily and cheerfully take this cup?” [Cyprian, Epist. lxxvi. p. 232. ed. Oxon., alias Epist. lxxvii. p. 159. ed. Bened.]  The remarks here proper are as follow:  1. That the author looked upon the Eucharist as an oblation, or sacrifice, or complication of sacrifices.  2. That in case of injurious exclusion from it, he conceived that spiritual sacrifices alone were equivalent to it, or more than equivalent to the ordinary sacrifices therein offered.  3. That therefore he could not suppose any sacrifice offered in the Eucharist to be the archetypal sacrifice itself, or to be tantamount to it: which I note chiefly in opposition to Mr. Dodwell, who imagined that the ancients “reckoned the Christian Eucharist for the archetypal sacrifice of Christ upon the cress” [Dodwell of Incense, p. 55.]: an assertion, which must be very much qualified and softened, to make it tolerable.  The Eucharist, considered as a Sacrament, is indeed representative and exhibitive of the archetypal sacrifice; not as offered, but as feasted upon by us, given and applied by God and Christ to every worthy receiver.  Therefore that excellently learned man inadvertently here confounded the sacrificial view of the Eucharist with the sacramental one, and man’s part in it with what is properly God’s.  What we give to God is our own service, and ourselves, which is our sacrifice: but the archetypal sacrifice itself is what no one but Christ himself could offer, whether really or symbolically.  We represent it, we do not offer it in the Eucharist; but it is there sacramentally or symbolically to us exhibited, or applied.  4. It may be noted of Cyprian, that he judged the devoting our whole selves to God’s service and to God’s glory, to be the most acceptable sacrifice which we are capable of offering: and his preferring the sacrifice of martyrdom (other circumstances supposed equal) to the ordinary sacrifice of the Eucharist, was conformable to the standing principles of the Church, in preferring the baptism of blood to the baptism of water. [Vid. Dodwell, Cyprian. Dissert. xiii. p. 420, etc.]

         It remains to be inquired, in how many senses, or upon what accounts, St. Cyprian styled the Eucharist a sacrifice.  1. He might so style it on account of the lay-offerings therein made, which were a spiritual sacrifice. [See above, Chapter I.]  2. Next, on account of the sacerdotal recommendation of the same offerings to the Divine acceptance:* which was another spiritual sacrifice.  3. On account of the prayers, lauds, hymns, etc. which went along with both the former, and were emphatically spiritual sacrifice.  4. On account of the Christian charity and brotherly love signified by and exemplified in the service of the Eucharist: for that Cyprian looked upon as a prime sacrifice of it.**  5. On account of the grand sacrifice applied by Christ, commemorated and feasted on by us (not properly offered) in the Eucharist. [See above, Chapter I.]  Such commemoration is itself a spiritual service, of the same nature with lauds, and so makes a part of the spiritual sacrifice of the Eucharist.  In these several views, Cyprian might, or probably did, look upon the Eucharist as a sacrifice, and accordingly so named it.

         *[See above.  Pope Innocent I. clearly expresses both, in these words: De nominibus vero recitandis, antequam preces sacerdos faciat, atque eorum oblationes, quorum nomina recitanda, sunt, sua oratione commendet, qualm superfluum sit, et ipse pro tua prudentia recognoscis: ut cujus hostiam nec dum Deo offeras, ejus ante nomen insinues,” etc.  Harduin. Concil. tom. i. p. 997.]

         **[Sic nec sacrificium Deus recipit dissidentis. ... Sacrificium Deo majus est pax nostra et fraterna concordia, et de unitate Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti plebs adunata.”  Cyprian. de Orat. p. 211.  edit. Bened., p. 150. Oxon.]

         There is one particular passage in Cyprian, which has been often pleaded by Romanists in favour of a real sacrificing of Christ in the Eucharist, and sometimes by Protestants, amongst ourselves, in favour of a material sacrifice at least, or of a symbolical offering up of Christ’s body and blood to God the Father.  The words of Cyprian run thus: “If Jesus Christ, our Lord and God, be the High Priest of God the Father, and first offered himself a sacrifice to the Father, and commanded this to be done in commemoration of himself; then that Priest truly acts in Christ’s stead, who imitates what Christ did, and then offers a true and complete sacrifice in the Church to God the Father, if he begins so to offer, as he sees Christ to have offered before.”*  From hence it has been pleaded, that Christ offered himself in the Eucharist, and that the Christian Priests ought to do the same that he did; that is, to offer, or sacrifice, Christ himself in this Sacrament. But it is not certain that Cyprian did mean (as he has not plainly said that Christ offered himself in the Eucharist: he might mean only, that Christ offered himself upon the cross, and that he instituted this Sacrament as a commemoration of it. As to the words true and complete sacrifice, he certainly meant no more, than that Christ offered both bread and wine, and had left it us in charge to do the same: and this he observed in opposition to some of that time, who affected to mutilate the Sacrament by leaving out the wine, and using water instead of it, which was not doing the same that Christ did.

         *[“Si Jesus Christus, Dominus et Deus poster, ipse est summus sacerdos Dei Patris, et sacrificium I Patri seipsum primus obtulit, et hoc fieri in sui commemorationem aecepit; utique ille sacerdos vice Christi vere fungitur, qui id, quod Christus fecit, imitator, et sacrificium veruni et plenum tune offert in Ecclesia Deo Patri, si sic incipiat offerre secundum quod ipsum Christum videat obtulisse.”  Cyprian. Ep. lxiii. p. 109. And see above, ch. i. p. 30.]

         However, I think it not material to dispute whether Cyprian really intended to teach, that our Lord offered himself in the Eucharist, since it is certain, that some Fathers of eminent note in the Church, after his days, did plainly and in terms affirm it:* and other Fathers admitted of our Lord’s offering, or devoting himself previously to the passion. [Chrysostom. in Joan. Hom. lxxxii. 484.  Cyril. Alex. de Adorat. lib. x. p. 350.  In Joan. lib. iv. c. 2. p. 354.]  And they are therein followed by several learned moderns, even among Protestants;** who ground the doctrine chiefly on John 17:19.  A sufficient answer to the objection (so far as concerns the Romish plea built thereupon) is given by our incomparable Bishop Jewel, in these words: “We deny not but it may well be said, Christ at his last supper offered up himself unto his Father: albeit. not really and indeed, but in a figure, or in a mystery; in such sort as we say, Christ was offered in the sacrifices of the old Law, and, as St. John says, The lamb was slain from the beginning of the world, as Christ was slain at the table, so was he sacrificed at the table; but he was not slain at the table verily and indeed, but only in a mystery.” [Jewel, Answer to Harding, p. 417; compare pp. 426, 427.]  This is a just and full answer to the Romanists, with whom the good Bishop held the debate.  But it may still be pleaded by those who maintain a material sacrifice, that this answer affects not them, since they contend only, that Christ offered the symbols in the Eucharist, and himself under those symbols, that is, in a mystery; just as a man offers to God houses or lands, by presenting a sword, or piece of money, or pair of gloves, upon the altar of a church, or transfers an estate by delivery of parchments, and the like: and if Christ thus symbolically offered himself a sacrifice in the Eucharist, why may he not be, in like manner, symbolically offered in the Eucharist at this day? [See Johnson’s Collection of Saxon Laws, etc. praef. p. 57, etc.]  This, I think, is the sum and substance of what is pleaded by some Protestants in favour of a symbolical sacrifice, as offered in the Eucharist.  To which I answer:  1. That no one has any authority or right to offer Christ as a sacrifice (whether really or symbolically) but Christ himself.  Such a sacrifice is his sacrifice, not ours; offered for us, and not by us, to God the Father.  If Christ in the institution offered himself under those symbols (which however does not appear [Vid. Sam. Basnag. Annal. tom. i. pp. 371, 372.]), he might have a right to do it: we have none, and so can only commemorate what he did, and by the same symbols.  2. If we symbolically sacrifice anything in the Eucharist, it is only in such a sense as St. Austin (hereafter to be quoted) speaks of; where he considers the bread and wine as symbols of the united body of the Church.  We may so symbolically offer up, or sacrifice ourselves, and that is all: more than that cannot comport with Scripture, or with the principle of the ancients, that all our sacrifices are made in and by Christ.  He is not the matter or subject of our sacrifices, but the Mediator of them: we offer not him, but we offer what we do offer, by him.***  3. If the thing symbolically offered in the Eucharist were Christ himself, then the offerer or offerers must stand in the place of Christ, and be as truly the symbols of Christ in their offering capacity, as the elements are supposed to be in their sacrificial capacity.  Then not only the Priests, but the whole Church, celebrating the Eucharist, must symbolically represent the person of Christ, and stand in his stead: a notion which has no countenance in Scripture or antiquity, but is plainly contradicted by the whole turn and tenor of all the ancient Liturgies, as well as by the plain nature and reason of the thing.  4. I may add, lastly, that all the confusion, in this article, seems to arise from the want of distinguishing the sacrificial part of the Eucharist from the sacramental one, as before noted: we do not offer Christ to God in the Eucharist, but God offers Christ to us, in return for our offering ourselves.  We commemorate the grand sacrifice, but do not reiterate it; no not so much as under symbols.  But God applies it by those symbols or pledges: and so, though there is no symbolical sacrifice of that kind, neither can be, yet there is a symbolical grant, and a symbolical banquet, which is far better, and which most effectually answers all purposes.  In short, there is, as the Apostle assures us, a communion of Christ’s body and blood, in the Eucharist, to every worthy receiver.  The real and natural body is, as it were, under symbols and pledges, conveyed to us here, where the verity is not: but to talk of our sending the same up thither, under the like pledges, where the verity itself is, carries no appearance of truth or consistency; neither hath it any countenance either in Scripture or antiquity.

         *[Hilarius, in Matt. c. xxxi. p. 743. ed. Bened.  Ambrosias, de Myster. Paschae, c. 1.  Gregor. Nyssen. de Resurr. Christi, seu Pasch. i.  Hesychius in Levit. pp. 55, 56; cp. 169, 376, 540.  Cp. Steph. Gobar. apud Phot. Cod. 232. p. 902.  Missal. Gotho-Gallican. p. 297. et Mabillon. in Praefat. et alibi.]

         **[Mede, Opp. p. 14.  Outram de Sacrif. pp. 307, 370.  Witsius, Miscellan. Sacr. tom. i. dissert. 2. not 87.  In Symb. Apost. Exercit. x. p. 147.  Whitby on John 17:19.  Zornius, Opusc. Sacr. tom. ii. p. 251.  Deylingius, Observat. Miscel. p. 560.  Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. pp. 61–96. part ii. pp. 4–10.  N.B. These authors suppose that our Lord devoted himself beforehand, gave himself on the cross, presented himself in heaven: one continued oblation in all, but distinguished into three several parts, views, or stages.]

         ***[Heb. 13:15.  “Per Jesum Christum offert Ecclesia. ... Non receperunt verbum per quod offertur Deo.”  Iren. lib. iv. c. 17, 18. pp. 249, 251. ed. Bened.  __ _Ļ_ Ļ_____ Ļ_________ ___, ___ ___ Ļ_____ ________ _________ _____ ___________.  Euseb. Dem. Evang. lib. i, c. 10. p. 39.  Cp. Augustin. de Civ. Dei, lib. x. c. 20.  Apostol. Const. lib. ii. c. 25. pp. 240, 241.]

         I now go on to Lactantius, who is supposed to have flourished about A.D. 318.  The Christian sacrifices which he speaks of, are meekheartedness, innocent life, and good works.  He allows of no sacrifices but of the incorporeal invisible kind, being that such only are fit for God, who is incorporeal and invisible, to receive, under the last and most perfect dispensation of the Gospel.  He distinguishes between gifts and sacrifices, because the Pagans had so distinguished: but in the last result, he lays no stress upon that distinction, indifferently reckoning a good life, either as a gift or a sacrifice.  However, where he seems at all to distinguish, he chooses to make integrity the gift, and such an one as shall continue for ever; while he appropriates the name of sacrifice, emphatically so used, to lauds, hymns, and the like, which he supposes are appointed for a time only.*

         *[“Quisquis igitur his omnibus praeceptis caelestibus obtemperaverit, hic cultor est veri Dei, cujus sacrificia sunt mansuetudo animi, et vita innocens, et actus boni. ... Duo sunt quae offerri debeant, donum et sacrificium: donum in perpetuum, sacrificium ad tempus. ... Deo utrumque incorporale offerendum est, quo utitur.  Donum est integritas animi, sacrificium laus et hymnus.  Si enim Deus non videtur, ergo his rebus coli debet, quae non videntur. ... Summus igitur colendi Dei ritus est, ex ore justi hominis ad Deum directa laudatio.”  Lactant. de vero Cultu, lib, vi. c. 24, 25.]

         We may now come down to Eusebius, of the same century, a man of infinite reading, and particularly conversant in Christian antiquities.  He speaks of “the venerable sacrifices of Christ’s table, by which officiating, we are taught to offer up to God supreme, during our whole lives, the unbloody, spiritual, and to him most acceptable sacrifices, through the High Priest of his, who is above all.”*  For the clearer understanding of what he meant by “the unbloody, spiritual sacrifices,” let him explain himself in the same page, where he says: “The prophetic oracles make mention of these incorporeal and spiritual sacrifices: Offer unto God the sacrifice of praise, and pay thy vows unto the Most High.”  And again, “The sacrifice of God is a contrite spirit,”** etc.  Hence it is manifest, that Eusebius did not mean by sacrifices the sacred symbols, which are corporeal, but the spiritual services of prayers, praises, and a contrite heart, as he expressly mentions.  Which will appear still the plainer, by his quoting, soon after, the noted place of Malachi, and expounding both the incense and pure offering, of prayers and praises.  His comment is worth the reciting: “We offer therefore to God supreme the sacrifice of praise: we offer the holy, the venerable sacrifice, which hath a decorous sanctity: we offer after a new way, according to the New Testament, the pure sacrifice: for the sacrifice to God is said to be a contrite spirit.”***  He goes on to sum up all in very strong and remarkable words, as here follows: “Therefore we offer both sacrifice and incense: first, celebrating the memorial of the grand sacrifice by those mysteries which he has ordained, and presenting our thanksgivings for our salvation, by devout hymns and prayers.  Next, we offer up ourselves to him, and to the Logos, his High Priest, resting upon him both with body and soul.  Whereupon we endeavour to preserve to him our bodies pure and untainted from all filthiness, and to bring him minds free from all evil affection and stain of maliciousness, and take care to honour him by purity of thought, sincerity of affection, and soundness of principles; for these, we are taught, are more acceptable to him than a multitude of sacrifices, streaming with blood, and smoke, and nidor.” [Euseb. Dem. Evang. lib. i. c. 10. p. 40.]

         *[__ _____ ___ _______ ___Ļ____ ______, __’ __ _____________, ___ ________ ___ _______ ____ __ Ļ________ ______, ___ Ļ_____ ____, __ _Ļ_ Ļ_____ Ļ_________ ___, ___ ___ Ļ_____ ________ _________ _____ ___________.  Euseb. Dem. Evang. lib. i. c. 10. p. 39.]

         **[______ __ Ļ____ ___ _________ ___ ______ ______ __ Ļ________ ________ _____ ... _____ __ ___ ______ ________, ___ _Ļ____ __ ______ ___ _____ ___ ... ___ Ļ____, _____ __ ___ Ļ_____ ______________.  Euseb. ibid. p. 39.]

         ***[______ ____ _________ __ _Ļ_ Ļ_____ ___ ______ _________ ______ __ ______ ___ ______ ___ ____Ļ__Ļ__ _____  ______ ______ ____ ___ ______ ________ _______ _______  _____ __ __ ___ Ļ_____ ______________ _______.  Euseb. ibid. p. 40; cp. c. vi. pp. 19, 20, 21, et in Psalm. p. 212.]

         This is an admirable description of the eucharistic solemnity, of the sacrifices contained in it, and of the ends and uses of it, and likewise of the preparation proper for it.  But my present concern is only with the sacrificial view of it.  Eusebius here takes notice, in the first place, of the grand sacrifice: which is no sacrifice of ours, but we make a memorial of it; and that very memorial is indeed all article of spiritual service, and so of course makes a part of our own spiritual sacrifice in the Eucharist.*  The rest is made up of such other sacrifices as the author has there handsomely enumerated.  I shall only observe further of Eusebius, for the cutting off all possible cavils about his meaning, that in another work of his he expressly teaches, that the unbloody sacrifices will be offered to God, not only in this life present, but also in the life to come.**  Certainly, he could not intend it of the eucharistic symbols, but of something else. Cyril of Alexandria has followed him in the same thought, where he supposes the angels to offer the unbloody sacrifices.***

         *[I observed above that the legal incense was a memorial, and it was burnt over the show bread, Lev. 24:7.  In like manner, our commemorative service is offered up to God over the elements, and is part of our Gospel incense, consisting of prayers, lauds, self-humiliation, etc.]

         **[___ ___ __ __ Ļ______ ___, ___ __ __ ________ __ _____, __ ______ ____ ___ ___ __________ __ ___ ______ ___Ļ__Ļ__ __ ______Ļ____ _ ________ ____.  Euseb. in Hesai. xviii. p. 427.]

         ***[Cyrill. Alexandr. de Recta Fide, p. 160.  N.B. The learned author of Unbloody Sacrifice once thought that mere spiritual sacrifices were never called unbloody: but he found afterwards that prayers had that epithet given them by Constantine.  Apud Sozom. lib. ii. c. 15.  He might have added Greg. Nyssen. de Poenit. p. 170.  As to this place of Cyril, he supposes it meant of offering Christ’s body in heaven.  Addend. to part i. in part ii. p. 266.  A strange thought! especially considering that angels are supposed by Cyril to be the offerers.  Compare what Lactantius says above of gifts, as continuing forever, meaning the tribute of homage, and so all is clear.]

         Were I now to go on to other Fathers, down to the sixth century, or further, it might be tedious to the reader: but they will all be found constant and uniform in one tenor of doctrine, rejecting all material, corporeal, terrene, sensible sacrifices, and admitting none but spiritual, such as I have mentioned.  Neither is there any difference concerning that point between Justin of the second, and Cyril of the fifth century, but that the latter is more full and express for the same thing.  However, I shall go on a little further, making choice of a few testimonies, appearing most considerable either for their weight or their accuracy.  I pass over Hilary and Basil, with hare references to the pages [Hilarius, pp. 154, 228, 534, 535. edit. Bened.  Basil. tom. iii. pp. 52, 270. edit. Bened.]: but Gregory Nazianzen may deserve our more especial notice.  He was eminently called the Divine, for his exactness of judgment, and his consummate knowledge in theology; and he has some remarkable passages, very apposite to our present purpose.  About the year 379, putting the case, that possibly, through the iniquity of the times, he might be driven from the altar, and debarred the benefit of the Eucharist, he comforts himself thus: “Will they drive me from the altars?  But I know, there is another altar, whereof these visible ones are but the figures, etc. ... To that will I present myself, there will I offer the acceptable services, sacrifice, oblation, and holocausts, preferable to those now offered, as much as truth is preferable to shadow. ... From this altar no one, who has ever so much a mind to it, shall be able to debar me.”*  Here we may observe, how Nazianzen prefers the spiritual sacrifices even before the sacrifice of the altar, externally considered.  A plain argument, that he did not look upon it as the archetypal sacrifice; for, if he had, he could never have been so presumptuous or profane, as to prefer any sacrifice of his own to the sacrifice of Christ.  He looked upon the eucharistic sacrifice, externally considered, and in its representative, commemorative view, to be no more than the figure of the archetypal, and a sign of the spiritual sacrifices: therefore he justly preferred the substance before shadows, and the real sacrifice of the heart, before the outward symbols;** the offering of which was not sacrificing at all, but representing a sacrifice, or sacrifices.

         *[____________ _________; ___’ ____ ___ ____ ____________, __ __Ļ__ __ ___ ________  _____ ... Ļ___________, _____ ____ _____, ______ ___ Ļ________ ___ ____________ _________ ___ ___ Ļ___________, ___ ________ _____ _______. ... ______ ___ ___ _Ļ____ __ ___ ____________ Ļ__ _ __________.  Greg. Nazianz. Orat. xxviii. p. 484.  Cp. Albertinus, p. 474.]

         **[Hence it may be observed, that the eucharistic sacrifice began to be more and more confined to one particular meaning, and to be understood in a narrow sense, as denoting the representation of a sacrifice: otherwise there would have been no room for Nazianzen’s preferring one to another; for it would have been opposing spiritual sacrifice to spiritual, and would not have answered.]

         There is another passage of Nazianzen, worth the reciting; and so I shall throw it in here, with some proper remarks upon it.  He had been setting forth the dignity and danger of the sacerdotal function, which for some time he had studiously declined; and among other considerations, he urges one, drawn from the weighty concern of well-administering the holy Communion, as here follows: “Knowing that no man is worthy of the great God, and Sacrifice, and High Priest, who has .not first presented himself a living holy sacrifice unto God, and exhibited the rational acceptable service, and offered to God the sacrifice of praise, and the contrite spirit (which is the only sacrifice that God, who giveth all things, demands from us back again), how shall I dare to offer him the external sacrifice, the antitype of the great mysteries? or how shall I take upon me the character or title of a priest, before I have purified my hands with holy works?”*  Here it may be noted, 1. That the author distinguishes very carefully between the external sacrifice in the Eucharist, and the internal, between the symbolical and the real.  2. That he did not judge the external sacrifice to be really a sacrifice, or to be more than nominal, since he opposes it to the real, internal sacrifices, judging them to be the only sacrifices required.  3. That he judged the external sacrifice to be the sign, symbol, or figure [This is intimated by the word ______Ļ__.  Cp. Orat. xi. p. 187.  Orat. xvii. p. 273.  Of which word see Albertinus, pp. 273–283.  Pfaffius. pp. 131–145.] of a true sacrifice (viz. of the grand sacrifice), improperly or figuratively called a sacrifice, by a metonymy of the sign for the thing signified. [Vid. Suicer. Thesaur. tom. i. pp. 1423, 1424.]  4. That such external, nominal sacrifice has also the name of oblation,** in the same figurative, metonymical way, as it was presenting to God the signs and symbols of the body broken, and blood shed, and pleading the merits of the passion there represented.  5. That the name of rational or spiritual service, borrowed from St. Paul, [Rom. 12:1. ______ _______.] is not a name for the external sacrifice, in our author, but for the internal of prayers, praises, contrite heart, etc.  6. That the external sacrifice (being the same with the memorial), if considered as more than vocal, and making a part of the thanksgiving service, may be justly reputed a sacrifice of the spiritual kind, falling under the head of sacrifice of praise.  7. That the spiritual sacrifices, whether considered as previous qualifications, or present services of priests and people, were thought to be the only true and proper sacrifices performed [I say, performed: there is another sacrifice represented, commemorated, which was performed 1700 years ago upon the cross.] in the Eucharist: and therefore so far as it is itself a sacrifice, and not barely a sign of a former sacrifice, it is a spiritual sacrifice.  8. Those spiritual sacrifices were believed essential to the Eucharist, considered either as a sacrifice or a salutary sacrament: for, without such spiritual sacrifices, there was no sacrifice performed at all, but a representation of a sacrifice;*** and not of ours, but of our Lord’s.  And though the Eucharist would still be a sacrament (not a sacrifice), yet it could not be salutary either to administrator or receiver, for want of the spiritual sacrifices, to give it life and efficacy; as is here sufficiently intimated by Nazianzen.

         *[_____ ___ _____ ___, ___ ___ ______ _____ ___ _______ ___ ____, ___ _______, ___ _________, _____ __ Ļ_______ ______ Ļ________ __ ___ ______ _____, _____, ____ _____ __ ___ ______ ________ ___ Ļ_____ ______________ (__ _____ _ Ļ____ ____ _Ļ_____ Ļ__’ ____ ______) Ļ__ _______ ________ Ļ_________ ____ ___ ______, ___ ___ _______ _________ ______Ļ__; _ Ļ__ ______ _____ ___ _____ _Ļ________, Ļ___ ______ ______ _________ ___ ______; Greg. Nazianz. Orat. i. p. 38.]

         **[Intimated in the word Ļ_________.  Cp. Cyrill. Hierosol. Myst. v. c. 9. p. 328.  “Christ is, in some sense, offered up to God by every communicant in the Sacrament, when he does mentally and internally offer him to God, and present, as it were, his bleeding Saviour to his Father, and desire him for his sake to be merciful to him, and forgive him his sins.  This internal oblation of Christ and his passion is made by every faithful Christian, etc. ... The Minister also ... does offer, as it were, Jesus Christ and his sacrifice for the people,” etc.  Dr. Payne’s Discourse on the Sacrifice of the Mass, A.D. 1688, pp. 52, 53.  Compare Abp. Sharpe, vol. vii. serm. xi. p. 251, and Deylingius, Observat. Miscellan. p. 315, and Pfaffius, who says, This no Protestants deny, pp. 106, 314, 344.  The oblation, in this view, is but another name for commemoration; as I have often noted before.]

         ***[Hujus sacrificii caro et sanguis, ante adventum Christi per victimas similitudinum promittebatur: in passione Christi per ipsam veritatem reddebatur: post ascensum Christi per sacramentum memoriae celebratur.”  Augustin. contr. Faust. lib. xx. c. 21. p. 348. tom. viii. edit. Bened.]

         There is a commentary upon Isaiah, which has been ascribed to St. Basil by critics of the first rate, but yet is probably rejected, as none of his, by the last learned editor of Basil’s works; who allows it however to be an useful piece, and as early as the fourth century, or thereabout.  What I mention him for is, that, instead of all the legal sacrifices, he admits of two only, under the Gospel; our Lord’s upon the cross, and ours, which consists in every man’s offering his own self. [Pseudo-Basil. in Isa. p. 398, etc. tom. i. edit. Bened.]  There is another author, who has commonly gone under the name of St. Chrysostom, but is now rejected as spurious, who divides the sacrifices of the Gospel after the same way: only the latter of the two he subdivides into nine, and so makes ten in all, [Pseudo-Chrysostom. in Psal. xcv. p. 631. inter spuria, edit. Bened. tom. v.] and all of the spiritual kind.  Cyril of Alexandria has a great many things very clear and express to our present purpose [Cyril. Alex. contr. Julian. lib. ix. pp. 307, 308.  Comment. in Isa. lib. i. Orat. i. pp. 14, 15.  In Malach. 1:11, p. 830.]: but there is one particular passage in his tenth book against Julian, which is so plain, and so full for spiritual sacrifices, in opposition to all material or corporeal sacrifices whatsoever, that nothing can be more so.  Comparing the sacrifices of Christians with these of the Jews, he writes thus: “We sacrifice now much better than they of old did: for here descendeth from heaven, not any sensible fire for a symbol of the ineffable nature but, the Holy Spirit himself, from the Father by the Son, enlightening the Church, and receiving our sacrifices, namely, the spiritual and mental ones.  The Israelites offered up to God bullocks and sheep, turtles and pigeons; yea, and first fruits of the earth, fine flour with oil poured upon it, cakes, and frankincense: but we, discarding all such gross service, are commanded to perform one that is fine and abstracted, intellectual and spiritual.  For we offer up to God, for a sweet smelling savour, all kinds of virtues, faith, hope, charity, righteousness, temperance,” [Cyrill. Alex. contr. Jul. lib. x. p. 345.] etc.  Here it is to be noted, that Cyril rejects absolutely all corporeal sacrifices, and not only the bloody ones of bulls and goats, and the like.  He opposes the Christian mental sacrifices to the sacrifices of fine flour and cakes, and other such gross and sensible sacrifices.  How could he do this, if he thought the elements of the Eucharist were a sacrifice or sacrifices?  Are bread and wine at all less gross, or less sensible, than fine flour, cakes, and oil, and other fruits of the earth?  Or have they any other claim to the name of mental and spiritual sacrifices, than the other also might justly have?  Therefore it is plain, that Cyril never admitted the material elements of the Eucharist, as any part of the Christian sacrifice; but the spiritual service performed in it, that was the sacrifice.  The material elements were signs and symbols of our Lord’s sacrifice, not the sacrifice itself, nor any sacrifice at all, in strict propriety of speech: for our own proper sacrifice, as distinct from our Lord’s, are our own services of prayer and praise, of faith, and of a good life.  Such is the constant doctrine of all antiquity.

         I shall close this account with the sentiments of the great St. Austin.  His treatise De Civitate Dei may be called his masterpiece, being his most learned, most correct, and most elaborate work; which lay upon his hands thirteen yea’s, from 413 to 426: he died. in 431.  Here then we may expect to find his most mature sentiments, laid down with the utmost exactness, relating to the sacrifice of the Eucharist.  He comprises all the Gospel sacrifices under two: one of which is our Lord’s own sacrifice upon the cross; and the other is the Church’s offering herself.  The first of these is represented and participated in the Eucharist, the latter is executed: this is the sum of his doctrine.  Of the former he observes,* that it succeeded in the room of the legal sacrifices which prefigured it: of the latter he observes, that the legal sacrifices were signs or symbols of it.**  The legal sacrifices were, in a prophetic and propitiatory view, figures of the former, and in a tropological view, figures of the latter.  The body of Christ he considers as twofold, natural and mystical; one of which is represented by us, and exhibited by Christ in the Eucharist; the other is offered as a proper spiritual sacrifice:*** and the bread and wine in the Eucharist are considered as symbols of both.  I say, he considers the sacramental elements not merely as symbols of the natural body, but of the mystical also, viz. the Church,**** represented by the one loaf and the one cup: so that by the same symbols we symbolically consign ourselves over to God, and God consigns Christ, with all the merits of his death and passion, over to us.  At length, his notion of the eucharistic sacrifice resolves into one compound idea of a spiritual sacrifice (wherein the communicants offer up themselves), commemorative of another sacrifice, viz. the grand sacrifice.  The offering of the body of Christ is a phrase capable of two meanings; either to signify the representing the natural body, or the devoting the mystical body: and both are included in the eucharistic service.  Such appears to be St. Austin’s settled judgment in this article, grounded, as I said, upon St. Paul’s.  It is a most ridiculous pretense of Father Harduin (which he pursues through many tedious pages [Harduin. de Sacramento Altaris, cap. x.]), that, according to St. Austin, Christ’s natural body is the sign, and his mystical body the thing signified in the Eucharist: for nothing is plainer from St. Austin, than that the bread and wine are the only signs, and that the things signified by them are both the natural and the mystical body of Christ, both his flesh and his Church.  As the word “offer” is a word of some latitude, he supposes both to be offered in the Eucharist; one by way of memorial before God, and the other as a real and spiritual sacrifice unto God.

         *[“Id enim sacrificium successit omnibus sacrificiis Veteris Testamenti, quae immolabantur in umbra futuri.”  “Pro illis omnibus sacrificiis et oblationibus corpus ejus offertur, et participantibus ministratur.”  August. de Civit. Dei, lib. xvii. cap. 21. p. 484.]

         **[“Per hoc et sacerdos est, et ipse oblatio: cujus rei sacramentum quotidianum esse voluit Ecclesia sacrificium, quae cum ipsius capitis corpus sit, seipsam per ipsum discit offerre.  Hujus veri sacrificii multiplicia variaque signa erant sacrificia prisca, sanctorum, cum ob hoc unum per multa figuraretur, tanquam verbis multis res una diceretur, ut sine fastidio multum commendaretur.  Huic summo veroque sacrificio cuncta sacrificia falsa cesserunt.”  Ibid. lib. x. cap. 20. p. 256.  Cp. lib. xix. cap. 23. p. 227.]

         ***[“Hoc est sacrificium Christianorum, multi unum corpus in Christo: quod etiam sacramento altaris, fidelibus noto, frequentat Ecclesia, ubi ei demonstratur, quod in ea re quam offert ipsa offeratur.”  August. de Civit. Dei, lib. x. c. 6. p. 243.  “Hujus autem praeclarissimum atque optimum sacrificium nos ipsi sumus, hoc est, civitas ejus: cujus rei mysterium celebramus oblationibus nostris, quae fidelibus notae sunt.”  Lib. xix. cap. 23. p. 226.]

         ****[“Corpus ergo Christi si vis intelligere, Apostolum audi dicentem fidelibus, Vos estis corpus Christi et membra.  Si ergo vos estis corpus Christi et membra, mysterium vestrum in mensa Domini positum est, mysterium Domini accipitis ... Nihil hic de nostro adseramus; ipsum Apostolum item audiamus: cum ergo de isto Sacramento loqueretur, ait; Unus panis, unum corpus, multi sumus. ...  Recolite enim, quia panis non fit de uno grano, sed de multis.  Augustin. serm. ccxxix. p. 976.  Cp. serm. cclxxii. p. 1103.]

         Having thus traced this matter down through four centuries, and part of the fifth, I cannot think it of moment to descend lower, since the earliest are of principal value, and are alone sufficient.  The Fathers were very wise and excellent men, saw very clearly what many learned moderns have had the misfortune to overlook, and agreed perfectly well in many points, about which the moderns have been strangely divided.  The Fathers well understood, that to make Christ’s natural body the real sacrifice of the Eucharist, would not only be absurd in reason, but highly presumptuous and profane; and that to make the outward symbols a proper sacrifice, a material sacrifice, would be entirely contrary to Gospel principles, degrading the Christian sacrifice into a Jewish one, yea, and making it much lower and meaner than the Jewish, both in value and dignity. [How contemptibly the Romanists speak of a material sacrifice in that view, may be seen in Bishop Morton (p. 438), who has collected their sentiments upon it.]  The right way therefore was, to make the sacrifice spiritual: and it could be no other upon Gospel principles.  Thus both extremes were avoided, all perplexities removed, and truth and godliness secured.

         So then here I may take leave of the ancients, as to the present article.  The whole of the matter is well comprised and clearly expressed in a very few words, by as judicious a Divine as any our Church has had: “We offer up our alms; we offer up our prayers, our praises, and ourselves: and all these we offer up in the virtue and consideration of Christ’s sacrifice, represented before us [I would only add, “and before God”] by way of remembrance or commemoration; nor can it be proved, that the ancients did more than this: this whole service was their Christian sacrifice, and this is ours.”*  A learned foreigner has likewise very briefly and justly expressed the nature of the Christian sacrifice; whose words I have thrown to the bottom of the page,** for the learned reader.

         *[Archbishop Sharpe, vol. vii. serm. xi. p. 253.  If any one is disposed to trace this matter down, even to the dark ages, he will find that most of the Greek and Latin Liturgies contain the same notion with the Fathers, of the spiritual sacrifice in the Eucharist.  See Covel, Acc. of Gr. Church. pref. p. 47; book, pp. 36, 41, 46, 53, 67, 68, 175.  Deyling. Observat. p. 310, etc.]

         **[Oblatio omnis quae fit a credentibus sub Novo Testamento, est incruenta, et vero castissima, et simplicissima, quia spiritualis.  Sive quis se ipsum, sive ____ suum, affectum, omnesque suas facultates et actiones Deo offerat ut sacrificium; sive alia ______, ministri verbi, qui in nobis convertendis laborarunt, nos offerant Deo; sive preces, ___________, supplicationes nostras feramus ad Deum, ubique eadem ratio: nullus hic funditur sanguis, nihil committitur violentum; actio tota est spiritualis, et ______.  Vitringa in Isa. 66:21. 951.]

         I shall now shut up this chapter with two or three short corollaries, which naturally offer, and may be of some use.

         1.  The first is, that this sacrificial view of the Eucharist squares exactly with the federal view before given.  For if it be really a spiritual sacrifice, in or by which every faithful communicant devotes himself entirely to God; and if the sacerdotal offering up our Lord’s mystical body be (as St. Austin explains this matter) a sacerdotal devoting all the faithful joining it, to God’s service, and to God’s glory: then may we again justly conclude, that the sacramental service is a federal, as well as a sacrificial solemnity: because, in this case, the administrator’s devoting the communicants, and their devoting themselves to God, is tantamount to a solemn renewing former engagements or covenants made with him, under such symbols as God has appointed, and promised to ratify on his part.

         2.  From hence may he understood, how Christians, at large, are priests unto God [1 Peter 2:5, 9.  Rev. 1:6, 5:10, 20:6.]: for every one that sacrificed], is so far a priest.  Therefore Justin Martyr represents Christians in common as so many priests, offering their sacrifices in the Eucharist. [Justin. Mart. Dial. p. 386.  Cp. Origen. in Levit. hom. ix. p. 236.]  And Isidorus, so late as the fifth century, does the like, [Isidorus Pelusiot. lib. iii. ep. 75. p. 284.] reckoning every man a priest, when he offers up his own body, or himself, a sacrifice unto God, by sacrificing his lusts and passions.  Nevertheless, the proper officers, who minister in holy things, and who offer up to God both the sacrifices and sacrificers, are priests in a more eminent and emphatic sense; as Isidorus observes in the same place, and as the reason of the thing itself sufficiently evidences.*  I may further note, that as Christians at large were considered as priests, on account of their offering spiritual sacrifices, so their consecration to such their priesthood was supposed to be performed in or by Baptism: or, in other words, their baptism was their consecration.**

         *[Cum omnes credentes N.T. sint sacerdotes respectu status spiritualis, et juris appropinquandi Deo in summo Pontifice Jesu; ministri verbi, dispensatores mysteriorum Dei, quatenus a Deo electi sunt, ut circa sacra publica versentur, respectu quodam oeconomico et externo, in externa Ecclesiae Ļ_______ fundato.  Hunc titulum sibi peculiari modo vindicant. Vitringa in Isa. 66:21. p. 951.  Cp. Vitring. in Apocalyps. p. 335.  N.B. This argument is discussed at large by Mr. Dodwell, De Jure Laico Sacerdotali, and by other tracts going along with his.]

         **[Tertullian. de Monogam. cap. vii. p. 529.  Origen. in Levit. hom. ix. 238.  Cyrill. Hierosol. Catech. xviii. cap. 33. p. 301.  Ambrosiaster. de Sacram. lib. iv. cap. i. p. 365. ed. Bened.]

         3.  A third corollary is that the Socinians, or others, who reject both the sacrificial and federal view, do not only causelessly depreciate a venerable sacrament and sacrifice, but at the same time do the greatest disservice imaginable to practical religion.  For as the sacrificial notion of the Eucharist, here explained, carries in it the most instructive and compendious lesson of Christian practice, so does the federal notion of the same carry in it the strongest engagements to bind us forever to it.  The removing these awakening hints, and the dissolving these sacred ties, under fair and smooth pretenses of supporting practical Christianity, is betraying great want of judgment or want of sincerity; because there cannot be a more dangerous or more fatal way of subverting, by little and little, all true Christian morality.

 

Chapter  XIII

Of the Preparation proper for the Holy Communion.

         If we have hitherto gone upon sure grounds, with respect to the nature, ends, and uses of the holy Communion, there can be no doubt made, but that so sacred and so salutary an institution ought to be held in great reverence, and to be observed with all joy and thankfulness, tempered with godly fear.  If we consider it either as a Divine ordinance coeval with Christianity, and perfective of it, or as a solemn memorial of God made man, or as an instrument whereby God vouchsafes to receive us, Christ to dwell in us, and the Holy Ghost to shed his blessed influences upon us; or if we consider it as the noblest part of Christian worship, the renewing of our covenant with God, the sacrificing of the heart, and the devoting of the affections, and all that we have, to his service, and to his glory; or if we further consider it as a badge of our most holy profession, and as a band or cement of union, whereby we abide in Christ, and have fellowship with all the family of heaven [Heb. 12:22–24.]; in which soever of these views we contemplate this holy ceremony, it must appear to be a matter of infinite concern to us, and highly deserving our most affectionate and devout regards.  How we ought to express our esteem of it, is the next thing to be inquired into: and the general rule here is, that we take care to do it in such a way, as may best answer those heavenly and salutary purposes for which this holy Sacrament was ordained.  Our esteem or disesteem of it will be seen by our conduct; by our frequenting or not frequenting it, by our preparing or not preparing for it, as also by our manner of behaviour at the time of receiving, or after.  My present concern is with the preparatory part.  There is something of a preparation of heart, mind, and ways, required for all religious offices [Eccles. 5:1–2.  1 Sam. 7:3.  2 Chron. 35:6.]; much more for this, which is the flower and perfection of all: and now the only remaining question is, what preparation is here requisite, or whereof it consists.  The nature and ends of the institution, laid down above, will be our sure marks of direction, and cannot mislead us, if carefully attended to.  Let us come to particulars.

         1.  Baptism, it is well known, must go before the Eucharist, like as Circumcision was previous to the Passover.  A person must be admitted into covenant first, in order to renew; must be initiated, in order to be perfected; must be born into the Christian life, before he takes in the additional food proper to support and increase it.  Of this there can be no dispute, and so I need not say much of it.  There is an instance in antiquity, as high as the third century, of a person who had long been a communicant, and who afterwards found reason to doubt whether he had been validly baptized, and thereupon scrupled the coming again to the Lord’s table.  His bishop advised him, in that case (considering how long he had been a communicant, and honestly all the time), to go on without scruple; not presuming to give him Baptism, which now seemed to be superseded by the long and frequent use of this other Sacrament.*  The case was very particular, and the resolution, probably, wise and just: both the scruple on one hand, and the determination on the other (made with some hesitancy, and scarce satisfactory to the party), shew how acknowledged a principle of the Church it then was, that Baptism is ordinarily a most essential part of the qualification required for receiving the holy Communion. Confirmation besides, is highly expedient, [See the Rubric at the end of our Order of Confirmation, and the Constitutions of Archbishop Peckham, A.D. 1281.  Spelm. Concil. tom. ii. p. 331.] but Baptism is strictly necessary.

         *[Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. vii. cap. 9.  But Timothy, afterwards Bishop of the same see (about A.D. 380) determined, that if a catechumen ignorantly should happen to receive the Communion, he should forthwith be baptized, pursuant to such call of God.  Timoth. Alexandr. Can. I. Hard. p. 1192. tom. i.]

         2.  A competent knowledge of what the Communion means is another previous qualification. St. Paul teaches, that a person, coming to the Lord’s table, should examine or approve himself, and that he should discern the Lord’s body [1 Cor. 11: 28–29.]: both which do suppose a competent knowledge of what the Sacrament means, and of what it requires. [_____ ____, ___ _______ __ _________.  Clem. Alex. Strom. i. 318.]  And from thence may be drawn a very just and weighty argument against infant communion.  But I return to the point in hand.  As to the measure of the competent knowledge required for receiving the Communion, it must of course vary, according to the various opportunities, abilities, circumstances of the parties concerned; to be judged of by themselves, with the assistance of their proper guides.  Great care was anciently taken in instructing the adults, called catechumens, in order to Baptism: something of like kind will he always proper, in such circumstances as ours, for the preparing persons for the first time of receiving the holy Communion.

         3.  A sound and right faith, as to the main substance of the Christian religion, is another previous qualification for this Sacrament.  For whether we consider it as a renewal of our baptismal profession and covenant, which is engaging to observe the Gospel terms; or whether we consider it as an instrument of pardon and grace, and a pledge of the inheritance among the saints in light; sound faith must undoubtedly be required, to answer such ends and uses of it.  Scripture has not directly said so, as there was no occasion for it; since the very nature of the thing, taking in Scripture principles, very fully and plainly declares it.  Accordingly, we find, as early almost as we have any records left, that true and sound faith was very particularly required in those that came to the Lord’s table.*  Besides a right faith in the general, a particular belief with respect to the graces and benefits of a worthy reception of this Sacrament, was anciently, as well as reasonably, judged to be a previous qualification for it, requisite to render it salutary to the recipient.  It would be tedious to produce authorities for it, and therefore I choose to refer the reader to the collections of that kind already made to our hands. [Bingham, book xv. c. 8. s. 8.]

         *[___ _ _____ ____ ________ Ļ__’ ____ __________, __ ______ ____ _________ ____ ____, _ __ Ļ_________ _____ _____ __ ___________ _Ļ’ ____.  Just. Mart. p. 96.  Hitherto belongs the noted proclamation anciently made by the Deacons, before the Communion began: __ ___ ___ ___________  Let no misbeliever come to the Lord’s table.  Vid. Apostol. Constitut. lib. viii. cap. 12. p. 403.]

         4.  Above all things, repentance ought to be looked upon as a most essential qualification for a due reception of the holy Communion.  All the ends and uses of the Sacrament declare it: the reason of the thing itself loudly proclaims it.  For, without that, what is covenanting but playing the hypocrite?  What is devoting ourselves to God at his table but lying and dissembling?  How is it possible to hold communion at once with God and Baal, with Christ and Belial?  Or how can the Spirit of God, and the spirit that worketh in the children of disobedience, dwell together?  It is plain therefore, that repentance, in some degree or other, and a heart turned to God, is essentially necessary to make the Sacrament salutary, yea, and to prevent its proving hurtful to the receiver.

         If we look into the ancients, upon this head, we shall find them with united voice declaring, that repentance is absolutely necessary to make a worthy receiver.  Justin Martyr specifies it among the previous qualifications, that the communicant shall be one who “lives according as Christ has commanded.” [_____ _______ __ _ _______ Ļ________.  Justin. Apol. i. p. 96.]  Clemens, of the same century, intimates, that a good life [Clemens Alex.  _____ ____, ___ _______ __ _________.  Strom. i. p. 318.] is requisite to a due receiving, and to prevent the receiving unworthily in St. Paul’s sense; quoting 1 Cor. 11:27–28.  Origen interprets the same words to mean, that the Sacrament must not be taken with a “soul defiled and polluted with sin.”*  St. Cyprian also more than once represents it as receiving unworthily, when a man comes to the Lord’s table, before he has expiated his offences, confessed his crimes, purged his conscience, and appeased the anger of God.**  All which shews that he understood the text of St. Paul, not merely of the manner of behaviour at receiving, but of the previous qualifications of the receiver.  In the same general way is the Apostle interpreted by the ancient commentators on that chapter.***  But because some persons had made a distinction between being unworthy to receive, and receiving unworthily; to cut off all evasion sought for in that nicety, it was replied; that if the Apostle had restrained even the worthy from receiving unworthily, he had much more restrained every unworthy person from receiving at all; being that such a one is not capable of receiving worthily, while he continues such, that is, while he goes on in his vices.****  There is scarce any one principle more universally agreed upon among the ancients, than this, that repentance and newness of life is a necessary preparation or qualification for the holy Communion, and is implied in worthy receiving.

         *[Ne in anima contaminata et peccatis polluta, Dominici corporis Sacramenta percipias.  Quicunque enim manducaverit, inquit, panem, et biberit calicem Domini iudigne, reus erit, etc. ... Cibus iste sanctus non est communis omnium, nec cujuscunque indigni, sed sanctorum est. Origen. in Lev. Hom. xiii. p. 257.  Cp. in Matt. p. 254. ed. Huet.]

         **[Contumacibus et pervicacibus comminatur et denuntiat, dicens: Quicunque ederit panem, aut biberit calicem Domini indigne, reus erit corporis et sanguinis Domini.  Spretis his omnibus atque contemptis, ante expiata delicta, ante exomologesim factam criminis, ante purgatam conscientiam sacrificio et manu sacerdotis, ante offensam placatam indignantis Domini et minantis, vis infertur corpori ejus et sanguini, etc.  Cypr. de Laps. p. 186.  Cp. pp. 19, 20, 141. edit. Bened.]

         ***[Chrysostom. in loc. p. 301, et de Poenit. Hom. vii. p. 326. tom. ii. ed. Bened.  Theodoret, Oecumenius, Damascene, Theophylact, Pelagius inter Opp. Hieronym., Ambrosiaster, Cassiodorus complex, p. 37.  Cp. Gregor. Nyssen. de Perfect. Christian. p. 718.]

         ****[Quidam sane dicunt, quia non indignum, sed indigne accipientem revocat a sancto.  Si ergo etiam dignus indigne accedens retrahitur, quanto magis indignus, qui non potest accipere digne?  Unde oportet otiosum cessare a vitiis, ut sanctum Domini corpus sancte percipiat.”  Pelagius in loc.]

         It has been pleaded in abatement that the Apostle, by his caution against receiving unworthily, intended only to censure all irreverent behaviour at the table, and that the censure or admonition there given concerns rather the manner of receiving, than the previous qualifications of the receiver. [See Mr. Locke on 1 Cor. 11:28.  Arth. Bury’s Constant Communicant, p. 250, etc.]  But to this pretext sufficient replies have been made by the more judicious. [Jenkins, Remarks on some Books, pp. 140–145.  Le Clerc, Biblioth. Chois. tom. xiii. p. 96.  Wolfius, Cur. Crit. in 1 Cor. 11:28.]  I may briefly observe, 1. That if the Apostle had said nothing at all of unworthy receiving, yet the reason of the thing would shew that the receiving of the Communion with dispositions repugnant to the end and use of it, is receiving unworthily, and offering an affront to its author.  2. That the Apostle’s reproof to the Corinthians, in that chapter, was not levelled barely against an irreverent manner of receiving, but against the ill spirit and the unchristian temper, with which they came to the Lord’s table: they were contentious, and full of animosities, split into factions and parties [1 Cor. 11:18–19.  Compare 1 Cor. 1:11–12.]; and from thence arose all their other disorders.  Therefore the Apostle both began and concluded his admonition [1 Cor. 11:33–34.] with particular cautions against the spirit of division then reigning amongst them; a temper very improper for a feast of love and amity.  3. There is no reason for restraining the Apostle’s general rules, laid down upon a special occasion, to that particular case only, especially when the reason of them extends equally to more.  The Apostle says, Whosoever shall receive unworthily, etc., not confining what he says of it to this way or that.  If it be receiving unworthily, in any ways whatever, his words are general enough to comprehend them all: and so are his other words; Let every one examine himself, and then eat, etc., and let him discern, discriminate, esteem, reverence the Lord’s body.  Therefore Chrysostom, upon the place, [Chrysostom in 1 Cor. 11. Hom. xxviii. p. 300, etc.  Cp. Damascen. in loc. p. 102.  Oecumenius, p. 532.  Theophylact, p. 260.  Compare Jenkins, pp. 142, 143.] highly extols the wisdom of the Apostle, in making such excellent use of a particular case, as thereupon to lay down general rules for all cases of like nature, for the standing use of the Church in all times to come.  Accordingly the judicious Theodoret takes notice that the Apostle in verse the 27th, where he speaks of receiving unworthily, obliquely rebuked the ambitious, and the fornicators, and those also who had eaten of things offered unto idols; and in short, all that come to the Communion with a guilty conscience. [Theodoret in 1 Cor. 11:27.]  Let it be considered whether such as the Apostle forbids us to eat with, [1 Cor. 5:11.] and whether those whom the Apostle censures as “partakers of the table of devils,” [1 Cor. 10:20–21.] and those whom he elsewhere describes as making one body with harlots, [1 Cor. 6:15–16.] could be capable, while so abiding, of receiving worthily?  If they could not, then the general rule of the Apostle, laid down in 1 Cor. 11 about receiving unworthily, must be understood to extend further than to the particular disorders which occasioned it.  But if it be said, that such, so abiding, might notwithstanding receive worthily, then these absurdities will follow; that persons who are not fit for Christians to eat with, or who are communicants of devils; or who are incapable of being living members of Christ, or temples of the Holy Ghost, are yet capable of worthily receiving that symbolical body and blood of Christ, which are appointed to strengthen our union with him, and which suppose men to be living members of him, at their coming to receive.

         Add to this, that St. Paul himself has elsewhere laid down a general rule, obliging all Christians to come clean to the Christian passover, drawn from the consideration of what was prescribed with respect to the Jewish one. [1 Cor. 5:7–8.]  For if the feast there mentioned does not directly mean the eucharistic feast, but the whole Christian life considered as a feast of holiness; yet the reason there given will hold more strongly for those particular seasons when we are actually celebrating the memorial of “Christ our passover Lamb,” as “sacrificed for us”.  For, as at all times, so then more especially, ought we to “purge out the old leaven,” and to keep the sacred feast with the “unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”

         Upon the whole, it must be allowed, that St. Paul’s general rule will by parity of reason reach further than the particular cases there mentioned, and must be understood to exclude all impenitent offenders.  This the Socinians themselves make no scruple to allow [Crellius, Ethic. Christian. lib. iii. c. 10. p. 354.  Schlichting. in 1 Cor. 11:28. p. 58.  Przipcovius in loc.]; as indeed it is so clear a case, that there can be but very little room left for any reasonable dispute.

         It remains still to be considered, what repentance really means, or wherein it consists. In the • general, it means a new heart, or a serious resolution to amend what we find amiss, to the utmost of our power, and a deliberate intention to live a life of holiness 7’ for the future; squaring our conduct, as near as human infirmities will permit, by the unerring rule of God’s commandments. To be more particular, there are four principal articles, which the ancients, in this case, most insisted upon, as previous qualifications for receiving the holy Communion; I shall consider them one by one, but as briefly as may be.

         *[The ancient way was to proclaim before the service began, ____ ____ ______.  Cyrill. Hierosol. Mystag. v. p. 331.  A form occurring in all the old Liturgies, and which Chrysostom interprets to mean, __ ___ ___ _____ _____, __ Ļ______, If a man is not holy, let him not come near.  In Hebr. Hom. xvii. p. 585.  See also above, p. 263.]

         1.  One was, restitution or reparation for any wrongs done to others in their persons, estate, or good name, to the utmost of our ability. [See Bingham, b. xv. c. 8. s. 10.]  This is but common justice, or moral honesty, and therefore must be looked upon as an essential article of amendment.  It would lead me too far, to undertake here to state the exact rule or measures of it: those may be learned from sound casuists, who have professedly weighed and considered the subject. [Bishop Tillotson’s Posth. Serm. cxvi. cxvii. p. 82 etc. fol. edit.  Placete, Christian Casuist, or Treatise on Conscience, book i. chap. 20–22.  Abridgment of Morality.]  In ordinary cases, an honest mind will not much need an instructor, but every well disposed person may be his own best casuist.  All I shall hint is, that for public wrongs public satisfaction is most proper, as being perhaps the only one that can sufficiently repair the public injury: but for secret wrongs, the more secret the reparation is, so much the better, other circumstances being equal; because so the wrong is repaired, and at the same time ill blood prevented, future suspicions obviated, peace and amity secured.

         To this head belongs what our Lord says; “If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.” [Matt. 5:23–24.]  The Lord’s Supper was not instituted when these words were spoken: nevertheless they are applicable to it, in a view to the general reason on which the rule stands; and they have been often so applied both by ancients and moderns.  Mr. Mede has well proved, that the precept is evangelical, [Mede, Disc. xlvi. p. 357, etc. edit. 1664.  Compare Johnson’s Propit. Oblat. p. 19, etc., and Lewis’s Answer to Unbloody Sacrifice, p. 32.] though worded in Jewish terms, suited to the time wherein it was given.  The disciples of our Lord (that is, believers at large, to whom that Divine sermon was directed [See Blair on the Sermon in the Mount, vol. i. serm. ii. iii. p. 27, etc.]) were Jews and Christians both in one, and therefore could not be properly addressed in any language, but what might competently suit them in such their double capacity.  The like was the case with respect to the Lord’s Prayer, which though a Christian prayer, was yet formed in such general terms, as might indifferently serve a religious Jew, at the time when it was given.  I say then, that; the precept delivered by our Lord, about the great duty of reparation to be made to every injured brother, before we offer to God, though an evangelical precept, was yet so worded as to comport with the then present circumstances of the persons to whom it was directed.  When circumstances came to be altered, the general reason still continued the same, and the application of it was easy and obvious to, every capacity.

         Irenaeus quotes the text, and adapts it to Christian circumstances in a very just and natural way.  Gifts he interprets to mean Christian worship, alms, and oblations: and by altar he understands the high altar in heaven. [Iren. lib. iv. cap. 18. pp. 250, 252.  Cp. Pfaffius, pp. 57, 58.]  Tertullian, in like manner, accommodates it to the case of Christians coming to offer up their prayers to God; intimating, that they ought first to be at peace with their offended brethren, and to bring with them a forgiving temper, as they hoped to be forgiven. [Tertullian. de Poenitent. cap. xii. p. 147; de Orat. cap. x. p. 133; et contr. Marc. lib. iv. cap. 9. p. 420.]  Both parts are true: but the latter appears foreign with respect to this text, which relates not to pardoning others who have injured us, but rather to the seeking pardon where we have injured.  However, as the two parts are near allied, it was easy to blend ideas, and to run both into one; as several other Fathers did.  Cyprian also accommodates the precept to Christian circumstances, interpreting the gift of prayers, which ought to be offered with a pacific temper of mind. [Cyprian. de Oratione, p. 211.]  Elsewhere he applies it to the eucharistic prayers and services. [Cyprian. de Unit. Eccl. p. 198.]  Eusebius and Cyril apply the text much in the same way. [Eusebius de Vit. Constant. lib. iv. cap. 41.  Cyrill. Hierosol. Mystag. v. p. 326.]  And Origen interprets the gift to mean prayer. [Origen. de Orat. p. 198.]  The Constitutions called Apostolical interpret “gift” of prayer, praise, and thanksgiving, and the precept of entertaining no enmity against others, and taking what care we can that they may have no just ground of complaint against us. [Constitut. Apostol. lib. ii. cap. 53. p. 260.]  Chrysostom accommodates the precept to the prayers and alms offered at the holy Communion, which would not be accepted, if not brought in charity, and with a peaceful mind. [Chrysostom. in Matt. Hom. xvi. p. 217. ed. Bened. tom. vii.]  In another Homily, [Chrysostom. de Simul. Hom. xx. p. 206, etc. tom. ii.] he presses the point somewhat further, and says many good things of the care we ought to take to make up differences, if possible, even with those who without any just cause are our enemies; that so we may restore them, and heal their sores, and gain them over to good will. All which is right, if tempered with the rules of Christian prudence, and not strained so far, as to make well disposed and truly peaceable persons stay away from the Lord’s table upon needless scruples; arising either from the irreconcilable temper of others, or from a want of due discernment of what is safe, prudent, or proper, under such or such circumstances. Improper or indiscreet overtures made by the offended party towards an offender, may often widen the breach which they mean to heal, and may increase the mischief, instead of curing it.

         Jerome, upon the text, appears rather argute than solid; where he comments to this effect, if I understand him: “It is not said, if you take anything amiss of your brother, but if your brother takes anything amiss of you; to make the terms of reconciliation so much the harder.  So long as we are not able to pacify the party.  I know not whether we ought to offer our gifts unto God.”*  This is straining the point too far, if it means anything more than the using all safe, prudent, and reasonable endeavours to remove causeless offences, where a person is ignorant or froward.

         *[“Non dixit, Si tu habes aliquid adversus fratrem tuum, sed, Si frater tuus habet aliquid adversum te; ut durior reconciliationis tibi imponatur necessitas.  Quamdin illum placare non possumus, nescio an consequenter munera nostra offeramus Deo.”  Hieron. in loc. tom. iv. p. 16. edit. Bened.]

         St. Austin, who had a cooler head than Jerome, and was a more exact casuist, has given the most just and clearest account of this text that I have met with; perhaps with a design to take off such scruples as Jerome’s account might have raised.  As to the gift mentioned, he interprets it of prophecy, that is, doctrine, and prayers, and hymns, and the like spiritual services.*  And as to the precept, he explains it thus: “if we call to mind that our brother has ought against us; that is, if we have any way injured him; for then it is that he has something against us.  But, if he has injured us, then we have something against him: in which case, there is no occasion to go to him for reconcilement.  You would not ask pardon of the man that has done you an injury; it is sufficient that you forgive him, as you desire forgiveness at God’s hands for what you have offended in.  We are to go therefore to be reconciled, when it comes into our mind, that haply we may have some way injured our brother.”**  The sum then of all is, that if we are certain that we have done any man an injury in his person, estate, or good name, or that we have given just cause of offence, it is our duty and business to make reparation, and to sue first for reconcilement: or if we are not certain, but probably suspect that we have been guilty that way, the same rule will still hold in proportion.  But if we have good reason to judge that the person has really injured us, or has causelessly and captiously taken offence where none was given, then be it to himself: there is nothing in this text obliging an innocent person, in such a case, to make the first step towards reconcilement, or to suspend his offerings on any such scruple.  There may, in some particular circumstances, be a kind of debt of charity, and Christian condescension, lying upon the injured party, to endeavour to reclaim and pacify the offender by soft and healing ways: but as that is a very nice affair, and the office such as many are not fit for, there lies no strict obligation in such a case, or at least not upon Christians at large, but upon those only who are peculiarly fitted for it.  Therefore it falls not properly under the question now in hand, nor within the precept of the text, which is general, extending equally to all Christians.  From the summary view here given of what the ancients thought of those words of our Lord (besides the clearing an important case of conscience, which I chiefly aimed at), it may be noted by the way, that the gift there mentioned was understood of spiritual sacrifice only, and the altar also of course must have been spiritual, while considered as an altar: which I take notice of as a confirmation of what hath been advanced in a preceding chapter.  But I proceed.

         *[“Quodlibet enim munus offerimus Deo, sive prophetiam, sive doctrinam, sive orationem, sive hymnum, sive psalmum, et si quid tale aliud spiritualium donorum animo occurrit,” etc.  Augustin. de Seem. Domini in Mont. p. 167. edit.  Bened. tom. iii.]

         **[“Si in mentem venerit, quod aliquid habeat adversum nos frater; id est, si nos eum in aliquo laesimus: tunc enim ipse habet adversum nos.  Nam nos adversus illum habemus, si ille nos laesit: ubi non opus est pergere ad reconciliationem; non enim veniam postulabis ab eo qui tibi fecit injuriam, sed tantum dimittes, sicut tibi dimitti a Domino cupis, quod ipse commiseris.  Pergendmn est ergo ad reconciliationem, cum in mentem venerit, quod nos forte fratrem in aliquo laesimus.”  Augustin. ibid.]

         2. As making restitution for any offences we have committed, is one necessary article of sacramental preparation, so is a readiness to forgive any offences committed against us another as necessary an article, and much insisted upon by the ancient churches. [See Bingham, xv. 8. 13.]  This is a rule laid down by our blessed Lord in his Gospel, and made an express condition of our own forgiveness, and left us, for the greater caution, as an article of the Lord’s Prayer to be daily repeated.  All the difficulty lies in clearing and ascertaining the true and full meaning of the forgiveness required. Our Lord in one place says, “If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him, and if he repent, forgive him”; and so again and again, as often as he repents, forgive. [Luke 17:3–4.  Matt. 18:21–22.]  May we then revenge ourselves upon an enemy, if he does not repent?  No, by no means: vengeance is God’s sole right [Deut. 32:35.  Rom. 12:19.  Heb. 10:30.]: man has nothing to do with it.  Even magistrates, who, in some sense, are revengers, or avengers, to execute wrath, [Rom. 13:4.] yet, strictly speaking, are not appointed to dispense vengeance.  They do not, they cannot award punishments in just proportion to demerits, as God can do: but they are appointed to act for the safety of the State; and what they do is a kind of self-defense, in a public capacity, rather than a dispensing of vengeance.  So that even they, properly speaking, are not commissioned to revenge: much less can any private persons justly claim any right to it.  Forgiveness, if understood in opposition to revenge, is an unlimited duty, knows no bounds or measures, is not restrained to any kind or number of offences, nor to any condition of repenting: but all offences must be forgiven, in that sense, though not repented of, though ever so cruelly or so maliciously carried on and persisted in.  Therefore the forgiveness which our Lord speaks of as limited to the repentance of the party offending, can mean only the receiving a person into such a degree of friendship or intimacy, as he before had: a thing not safe, nor reasonable, unless he shews some tokens of sorrow for his fault, and some signs of a sincere intention to do so no more.  Forgive him in such a sense, as to meditate no revenge, to wish him well, and to pray for him, and even to do him good in a way prudent and proper: but admit him not into confidence, nor trust yourself with him, till he repents: for that would be acting too far against the great law of self-preservation.  Only take care, on the other band, not to be over distrustful, nor to stand upon the utmost proofs of his relenting sincerity, but rather risk some relapses.  This, I think, in the general, is a just account of Gospel forgiveness. [Compare Abp. Tillotson, Serm. xxxiii. p. 392. vol. i. fol. edit.  Towerson on the Sacraments, p. 298.

         But to prevent all needless scruples, I may explain it a little further, in some distinct articles:  1. Gospel-forgiveness interferes not with proper discipline, nor the bringing offenders in a legal way to public justice.  An informer may prosecute, a witness accuse, a jury bring in guilty, a judge condemn, and an executioner dispatch a criminal, without any proper malevolence towards the party, but in great benevolence towards mankind.  2. Gospel forgiveness interferes not with a person’s prosecuting his own just rights, in a legal way, against one that has grievously injured him in his estate, person, or good name: for a man’s barely doing himself justice, or recovering a right, is not taking revenge.  A person wrongs me, perhaps, of a considerable sum: I forgive him the wrong, so as to bear him no malice; but I forgive him not the debt, because I am no way obliged to resign my own property or maintenance to an injurious invader.  3. Gospel forgiveness interferes not with a just aversion to, or abhorrence of, some very ill men; liars, suppose, adulterers, fornicators, extortioners, impostors, blasphemers, or the like: for such hatred of aversion is a very different thing from hatred of malevolence, may be without it, and ought to be so.  We cannot love monsters of iniquity with any love of complacency, neither does God delight in them as such: but still we may love them with a love of benevolence and compassion, as God also does. [See Towerson on the Sacraments, pp. 298, 299.]  4. Neither does Gospel forgiveness interfere with any proper degrees of love or esteem.  A man may love his enemies in a just degree, and yet love his friends better, and one friend more than another, in proportion to their worth, or nearness, or other circumstances.  Our Lord loved all his disciples, even Judas not excepted: but he loved one more particularly, who was therefore called “the disciple whom Jesus loved” [John 13:23, 19:26, 20:2, 16:7, 20.]; and he loved the rest with distinction, and in proportionate degrees.  5. I have before hinted, that Gospel forgiveness interferes not with rejecting enemies from our confidence, or refusing to admit them into our bosoms.  We may wish them well, pray for them, and do them good; but still at a proper distance, such as a just regard for our own safety, or reasons of peace, piety, and charity may require.  6. I may add, that cases perhaps may be supposed, where even the duty of praying for them may be conceived to cease.  “There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.” [1 John 5:16.]  But in this case, they are not to be considered merely as private enemies, but as public nuisances, and as offending of malicious wickedness, not against man only, but against God and religion.  Indeed, charity forbids us to pass such a censure, except it be upon very sure grounds; which perhaps we can but seldom, if ever, have: but I was willing to mention this case, for the better clearing up St. Paul’s conduct in this very article.  It may deserve our notice, that he prayed for those who had meanly, and through human infirmity, deserted him in the day of trial, that the sin might not be “laid to their charge” [2 Tim. 4:16.]: in the same breath almost, speaking of Alexander, a wicked apostate, who had most maliciously opposed him and the Gospel, he says, “The Lord reward him according to his works.” [2 Tim. 4:14.]  He would not honour him so far, as to pray for his conversion or forgiveness: or he knew his case to be too desperate to admit of either.  Nevertheless, he left the vengeance entirely to God, whose right it was; and he took not upon him so much as to judge of the precise degree of his demerits, but committed that also to the unerring judgment of God.  I am aware, that very considerable Divines, ancient and modern, choose to resolve the case another way, either into prediction by the Spirit, or into apostolical authority: but I humbly conceive, that there is no need of either supposition, to reconcile the seeming difficulty.  Only, as I before hinted, an Apostle might better know the desperate state of such a person, than any one can ordinarily know at this day; and so he might proceed upon surer grounds: on which account, his example is not lightly to be imitated, or to be drawn into a precedent.  Enough, I presume, has been here said of the nature, measure, and extent of Gospel forgiveness, and I may now proceed to a new article of sacramental preparation.

         3.  Another previous qualification, much insisted upon by the ancients, [Bingham, xv. 8. 11.] was a due regard to Church unity and public peace, in opposition to schism in the Church or faction in the State.  The reason and the obligation of both is self-evident, and I need not enlarge upon it.  It may be noted, that the Corinthians, whom St. Paul reproved, were much wanting in this article of preparation; as appeared by their heats and animosities, their sidings and contests.  They did not duly consider this Sacrament as a symbol of peace, a feast of amity: they did not discern the Lord’s body to be what it really is, a cement of union, and a bond of true Christian membership, through the Spirit.

         4.  A fourth article was mercy and charity towards the poor brethren. [See Bingham, xv. 8. 12.]  The equity of which is manifest: and it is a duty which has been so often and so well explained, both from the press and the pulpit, that I may here spare myself the trouble of saying a word more of it.

         Having shewn, first, that repentance, at large, is a necessary part of sacramental preparation, and having shewn also of what particulars such repentance chiefly consists (not excluding other particulars, for repentance means entire obedience), I may now add, for the preventing groundless scruples, that allowances are always supposed. for sins of infirmity, sins of daily incursion, such as are ordinarily consistent with a prevailing love of God and love of our neighbour.  The slighter kind of offences ought never to be looked upon as any bar to our receiving, but rather as arguments for receiving, and that frequently, in order to gain ground of them more and more, and to have them washed off in the salutary blood of Christ.

         As to the length of time to be taken up in preparing, there is no one certain rule to be given, which can suit all cases or circumstances: only, when a man has completely adjusted his accounts with God (be it sooner, or be it later), then is he fit to come, and not till then.  There is an habitual, and there is an actual preparation.  The habitual preparation is a good life; and the further we are advanced in it, the less need there is of any actual preparation besides: but because men are too apt to flatter and deceive their own hearts, and to speak peace to themselves without sufficient grounds for so doing; therefore some actual preparation, self-examination, etc. is generally necessary even to those who may be habitually good, if it be only to give them a well grounded assurance that they really are so.  However, the better men are, the less actual preparation may suffice, and the shorter warning will be needful.  Some therefore may receive as often as they have opportunity, though it were ever so sudden or unexpected; and they may turn it to good account by their pious care and recollection in their closets afterwards.  Others may have a great deal to consider of beforehand, many offences to correct, many disorders to set right, much to do and much to undo, before they presume to come to God’s altar.

         Fault has been sometimes found with the little treatises of Weekly Preparation, and the like: I think without reason.  They are exceeding useful in their kind; and even their number and variety is an advantage, considering that the tastes, tempers, necessities, capacities, and outward circumstances of Christians, are also manifold and various.  It may be happy for them who need none of those helps: but they that least need them are not the men, generally, who most despise them.  However, they are not obtruded as things absolutely necessary for all, but as highly useful to many, and especially upon their first receiving: though we are none of us perhaps so perfect, as not to want, at some seasons, some such hints for recollection, or helps to devotion.  There may be excesses, or there may be defects in such treatises: what human compositions are without them?  On the other hand, it should be considered, that there may be excesses and defects also in the censures or judgments passed upon them: for human frailties are as much seen to prevail in the work of judging and censuring, as in anything else whatsoever. In the general, it is well for common Christians, that they are so plentifully provided with useful manuals of that kind: they that are well disposed will make use of them as often as they need them, and will at all times give God thanks and praises for them.

         I have said nothing, hitherto, about coming fasting to the Lord’s table, neither need I say much now. The rule was early, and almost universal [Bingham, xv. 7. 8.  Gaspar. Calvoer. Ritual. Eccles. vol. i.  p. 413, etc.  Sam. Basnag. Annal. tom. ii. p. 295, etc.]; a rule of the Church, not a rule of Scripture, and so a matter of Christian liberty, rather than of strict command. They that use it as most expressive of Christian humility and reverence, or as an help to devotion, do well; and they that forbear it, either on account of infirmity, or for fear of being indisposed, and rendered less fit to attend the service, are not to be blamed.  No one need be scrupulous concerning this matter: none should be censorious either way; either in rashly charging superstition on one hand, or in charging, as rashly, irreverence on the other.  I shall only observe further that it was a weak thing for so great a man as the justly celebrated Mabillon to draw an argument in favour of the corporal presence, from the custom of the Church in administering or receiving this holy Sacrament fasting. [Mabillon de Liturg. Gallican. lib. i. cap. 6. pp. 60, 61.]  For as the custom, probably, came in accidentally, either because, in times of persecution, Christians chose to communicate early in the morning for their greater safety, or because abuses had been committed in the previous love feasts; so was it continued for the like prudential reasons, and then only came to have different colours put upon it, when the reasons which first introduced it were, in a manner, forgotten and sunk.  Besides, it was the ancient custom for both the administrator and receiver of Baptism, to come fasting, out of reverence to that Sacrament [Martene de Antiq. Eccl. Rit. tom. i. p. 25.  The like rule was afterwards made for Confirmation.]: which further shews how slight the argument is, drawn from the custom of fasting before the Eucharist, as to proving anything of a corporal presence.  If any man, duly considering how sacred those symbols of the Eucharist are, and to what high and holy purposes they were ordained, looks upon fasting as a proper token of the reverence he bears towards things sacred; he may as well fast upon that principle, as upon the imaginary notion of a corporal or local presence.

         I have nothing further to add, upon the head of sacramental preparation: but if any one desires to see this article more minutely drawn out, in its full length, he will not perhaps easily find a treatise better fitted to the purpose, than Bishop Taylor’s Worthy Communicant [Taylor’s Worthy Communicant, chap. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. pp. 79–357.]: to that therefore I refer the reader.

 

Chapter  XIV

Of the Obligation to frequent Communion.

         As to frequency or constancy in receiving the Sacrament, it may be justly said in the general, abstracting from particular circumstances, that a man cannot too often commemorate our Lord and his passion, nor too often return devout thanks and praises for the same, nor too often repeat his resolutions of amendment, nor too often renew his solemn engagements, nor too often receive pardon of sins, and fresh succours of Divine grace: and if coming to the Lord’s table (prepared or unprepared) were a sure and infallible way to answer those good and great ends, there could then be no question, but that it would be both our wisdom and our duty to communicate as often as opportunities should invite and health permit.  But it is certain, on the other hand, that bare communicating is not the thing required, but communicating worthily.  Here lies the main stress of all, not to urge frequency of communion so far as to render this holy Sacrament hurtful or fruitless to the parties concerned; neither yet to abate so far of the frequency, as to make a kind of dearth or famine of this so salutary and necessary food.  Divines in all ages of the Church (unless we may except the first, and part of the second) have found some perplexity in settling a just mean between the extremes.  I do not mean as to theory, or as to the thing considered in the general and in the abstract, but with respect to particular persons, cases, and circumstances; of which it is very difficult, if not impossible, to judge with unerring exactness.  They determined perhaps as well and as wisely, upon the fairest presumptions and probabilities, as human sagacity in such dark cases could do: and if they sometimes ran into extremes, either on the right hand or on the left, their meaning all the while was good, and their conduct such as may reasonably claim all candid construction, and the best natured allowances.  One thing is observable (and I know not whether one can justly blame them for it), that, for the most part, they seemed inclinable to abate of frequency, rather than of the strictness of preparation or qualification.  They considered, that due dispositions were absolutely necessary to make the Sacrament salutary, and were therefore chiefly to be looked to: and they supposed, with good reason, that God would more easily dispense with the want of the Sacrament than with the want of the qualifications proper for it.  They thought further, that while a man was content to abstain from the Lord’s table, out of an awful reverence for it, there was good probability that such a person would, by degrees, be perfectly reclaimed: but if once a man should set light by those holy solemnities, and irreverently rush upon them, without awe or concern, there could be very little hopes of his conversion or amendment; because he despised the most sacred bands of allegiance towards God, and looked upon them only as common forms. [Vid. Isidor. Pelusiot. lib. iii. ep. 364, p. 398, alias 345.]  Such were the prevailing sentiments of the ablest Divines and casuists in those ancient times; as will appear more fully, when I come to give a brief detail of their resolutions in this article, which I shall do presently.

         But I may first take notice, for the clearer conception of the whole case, that, since it is allowed on all hands that there can be no just bar to frequency of Communion but the want of preparation, which is only such a bar as men may themselves remove if they please, it concerns them highly to take off the impediment, as soon as possible, and not to trust to vain hopes of alleviating one fault by another. It was required under the Law, that a man should come holy and clean, and well prepared [2 Chron. 30:1, etc.; 35:3–6, etc.] to the Passover: but yet his neglecting to be clean (when he might be clean) was never allowed as a just apology for his staying away.  No: the absenting in that case was an offence great enough to deserve the being cut off from God’s people, [Exod. 12:13, 19.  Num. 9:13.] because it amounted to a disesteeming, and, in effect, disowning God’s covenant.  The danger of misperforming any religious duty is an argument for fear and caution, but no excuse for neglect: God insists upon the doing it, and the doing it well also.  The proper duty of the high priest, under the Law, was a very dangerous employ, requiring the most exact care and profoundest reverence [  Levit. 16:13.  Cp. Deyling. Observ. Sacr. tom. ii. n. 41, p. 493; tom. iii. n. 46, p. 454, etc.]: nevertheless, there was no declining the service; neither was the exactness of the preparation or qualifications any proper excuse to be pleaded for nonperformance.  It was no sufficient plea for the slothful servant, under the Gospel, that he thought his Master hard to please, and thereupon neglected his bounden duty [Matt. 25:24, etc.  Luke 19:20, etc.]: for the use he ought to have made of that thought was, to have been so much the more wakeful and diligent in his Master’s service.  Therefore, in the case of the holy Communion, it is to very little purpose to plead the strictness of the self-examination, or preparation, by way of excuse either for a total, or for a frequent, or for a long neglect of it.  A man may say, that he comes not to the table, because he is not prepared, and so far he assigns a good reason: but if he should be further asked, why he is not prepared, when he may; there he can only make some trifling, insufficient excuse, or remain speechless.

         But for the further clearing of this important article of frequent Communion, it may be proper to trace the judgment and practice of the churches of Christ from the beginning, and downwards through six or eight centuries; which I shall endeavour to do in as plain and few words as the nature of the subject will admit of.

 

Century the First.

         In the days of the Apostles, Communions were frequent; either every day, or at least every Lord’s day. Some have probably enough collected from the history of the Acts, that at Jerusalem, the mother church, there was a daily Communion, [Acts 2:42, 46.] and that in other churches the custom was to have weekly Communions at least, that is to say, upon the Lord’s day. [Acts 20:7.]  But all must be understood of persons fitly prepared, to appearance at least: for it is certain, that open fornicators, extortioners, idolaters, and the like, were not admitted to Communion.  Christians were not allowed to keep company with such delinquents, no not to eat common meals [1 Cor. 5:11–12.  Cp. 2 John 10.]; much less to communicate.  St. Paul gave orders for excommunicating the incestuous Corinthian [1 Cor. 5:5, 13.]; and he admitted him not again, till after a very serious and solemn repentance, after his being almost swallowed up of grief. [2 Cor. 2:6–7.]  However, it is observable, that both his exclusion and his readmission were within the compass of a twelvemonth: for St. Paul’s two Epistles to Corinth are judged to bear date the same year, namely, A.D. 57.  Such are the apostolical precedents for frequent Communion if prepared, and for abstaining if not prepared.

 

Century the Second.

         In the next century we have undoubted evidences of weekly Communions, and particularly on the Lord’s day.  This is justly collected from the testimony of the younger Pliny above cited, [See above, Chapter I.] and is plainly declared by Justin Martyr, [__ ___ _____ ________ _____ _. _. _.  Just. Mart. Apol. i. p. 97.] of the same century.  None but true believers and men of good lives were permitted to receive, as I before observed [See above, Chap. XIII.] from the same excellent writer: so that frequency of communicating was never urged in derogation of the preparatory requisites, or to make any abatement in them.  As to public and scandalous offences, in faith or manners, those the Church could see, and provide against, by debarring the offenders from Communion: and as to secret impediments, they took what care they could, by permitting or exhorting such as might be conscious of their own unfitness, to forbear coming to the altar.  There is a remarkable passage to this purpose, in a learned writer of the second century, which runs thus: “Some, after the customary division of the elements, leave it upon the consciences of their people, either to take their part, or otherwise.  For the best rule to determine them in their participation or forbearance, is their own conscience: and the surest foundation for conscience to proceed upon is a good life, joined with a competent measure of proficiency in Christian knowledge.  And the best method of coming at the knowledge of the truth, and a right performance of what is commanded, is to choose for your direction persons of most approved faith and conduct.  For whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord: but let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread, and drink of the cup.” [Clem. Alex. Strom. i. p. 318.]  Thus far Clemens.  And from thence we may observe, that there was yet no standing rule or Canon of the Church, obliging all the faithful to receive as often as they met for Divine Service; but Christians were left at liberty to judge how far they were fitly qualified in knowledge, or in godly living: only, it was supposed, that they ought to be fitly qualified; and if they were, to receive.

         Tertullian, who lived in the close of the same century, takes notice of some who declined receiving, upon the stationary days (Wednesdays and Fridays), for fear of breaking their fast. [Tertullian. de Orat. cap. xiv. p. 136.]  He blames them for their foolish scruple, and suggests to them a better way, whereby they might keep both their fast and their feast.  I may observe from it, that he thought it a duty incumbent upon all the faithful, to communicate as often as they might; but the Church had not yet enforced the duty with any Canons, obliging them under pain of ecclesiastical censure to receive: for, had that been the case, Tertullian probably would have mentioned it; or rather, there would scarce have been room left either for their scruples on one hand, or for his charitable advice on the other.  However, from hence perhaps we may date the first beginnings of that coldness and backwardness in point of frequent Communion, which grew up apace amongst Christians afterwards: it is not certain that those persons were sincere in their pretended scruples; but they might be willing to shift of the duty as decently as they could, under the fairest colours.

 

Century the Third.

         St. Cyprian, who flourished about the middle of the third century, mentions daily Communions, as the common practice of that time [See the whole passage above, Chapter VI.]: and he everywhere speaks highly of the use and benefit of the Sacrament to the worthy receivers: but no man could be more careful to prevent any one’s coming to the Lord’s table, who had committed any of the grievous sins, and had not yet made full satisfaction to God and the world, by a strict and solemn repentance.

         In this century crept in some superstitious or overcurious conceits about legal defilements, [Vid. Canones Diouys. Alexandrin. Harduin. tom. i. p. 187, chap. vi. p. 123. etc.  Bevereg. Pandect. tom. ii. p. 4, etc.] as a bar to Communion, or even to coming to the Christian assemblies.  Such niceties, while they carried a show of reverence for holy places and things, might notwithstanding have better been let alone; having no warrant in the Gospel of Christ, nor in the practice of the earlier ages of the Church, so far as appears: neither indeed were they altogether consistent with the ancient custom of daily Communions of all the faithful, which had obtained in some churches.  One thing is observable, that during the first three centuries, we meet with no Canons made to enforce frequent Communion, scarce so much as exhortations to it, or any complaints of neglect in that article: which is an argument that Christians in those times were not tardy in that respect, but rather forward and pressing, under an high notion of the privilege and comfort of partaking of the holy Communion.  Therefore the chief care and concern of Church guides, during the first ages, was rather to inculcate the necessity of due preparation, than to insist upon frequency, for which there was less occasion.  But times and circumstances soon came to be altered; as we shall see presently, upon taking a view of the following centuries.

 

Century the Fourth.

         In the year 305 (some say, 300, or 303, or 313, or 324) was held a council of nineteen Bishops, at Eliberis, or Elvira, in Andalusia, a province of Spain.  Among many other Canons, a rule was then made, not to accept of an offering from one who did not communicate. [“Episcopos placuit ab eo, qui non communicat, munera accipere non debere.”  Concil. Illiberit. Can. xxviii.  Harduin. 153.]  We may judge from hence, that Christians now began to be remiss, with respect to Communion, and that such Canon was intended for a gentle rebuke to them; a mark of public disfavour, in order to excite and quicken them, first to prepare, and then to receive.  Many perhaps might now grow cold and careless as to coming to the Lord’s table; either because they had not a just sense of the use and benefit of it, and of the obligations they were under to it; or they loved the world too well, and were willing to put off their repentance from day to day, and so of course to stave off that solemn profession which the holy Sacrament required. The like coldness and backwardness appeared in many of that age, even with respect to Baptism:* for, while they were well-wishers to it, and stood candidates for it, they yet loved to procrastinate and to feign excuses; because delaying Baptism was delaying repentance, which depraved nature was prone enough to do.  The case, very probably, was much the same with respect to this other Sacrament: and hence arose that coldness towards it, which the Church guides of those times were much concerned at, and endeavoured gently to remove.

         *[Vid. Basil. Homil. in Sanct. Bapt. p. 114, etc. edit. Bened. tom. ii.  Gregor. Nazianz. Orat. xl. p. 647, etc.  Constit. Apostol. lib. vi. cap. 15.  Gregor. Nyssen. de Baptism. Opp. tom. iii. p. 216, etc.  Compare Bingham, xi. 6, 2, 3, etc.]

         When those milder applications did not sufficiently answer, some brisker methods were thought on for the compassing the same good end.  In the year 341, a Council of Antioch decreed, “That all they who came to Church, and heard the holy Scriptures read, and afterwards joined not in prayer with the people, or turned their backs on the holy Communion, after a disorderly way, should be cast out of the Church, till such time as they should make public confession of their fault, and give proofs of their repentance, and humbly sue to be reconciled.”*  This rule may seem to be a severe rule, on more accounts than one.  1. As it appears to run in general terms, making no express exceptions for those who, for just causes, best known to themselves, might sometimes decline receiving.  2. Supposing any person to absent from the Lord’s table, out of reverence to it (being conscious to himself of some secret offences), as it was a rule of the Church to excommunicate no man but for open and scandalous sins, it might look hard to excommunicate merely for not receiving constantly; because it was, in effect, extending discipline even to the most private and concealed offences, or to other impediments.  3. Since no one ought to receive but he that sincerely repents; and since repentance must be free, or it is really no repentance; it appears not right to excommunicate a man, in order to oblige him to receive, unless it were right also to excommunicate every one who should delay repentance, or who would not instantly be persuaded to reform, so far as to be capable of receiving worthily the holy Communion.  This appears not to have been the rule of the earlier centuries: for they left men at liberty to judge (except in cases of open scandal) how far they were worthy or otherwise, and thereupon to choose either to receive or forbear.  These or the like reasons, I presume, have put learned men upon softening explications, to mitigate the rigour of the Canon.  Emanuel Schelstrate has suggested, that the order then made pointed chiefly at the Audians, or Quarto-decimans, [Vid. Schelstrate de Concilio Antiochen. pp. 179, 222.] who held private conventicles, but came occasionally to Church, to hear the Scriptures read, and sermons preached, and then departed, in a disorderly and scornful manner, upon some erroneous principles of their sect, to the great scandal and offence of the more serious and sober part of the congregation.  Schelstrate’s account is favoured by two circumstances: one, that the Canon immediately preceding most plainly strikes at the Quarto-decimans, though without naming them; and the other, that the Canon does not simply and absolutely censure all non-communicants, but some only, with this restriction, as doing it ____ ____ _______, which Dionysius Exiguus renders “pro quadam intemperantia,with a certain rudeness; and Isidorus Mercator renders secundum aliquam propriam disciplinam,” according to the principles of their own sect.  Now, if such was the case, then the rigour of the Canon affected not the main body of the faithful, adhering to the Church, who might be still left to the same discretionary conscientious liberty as before.

         *[______ ____ _________ ___ ___ _________, ___ ___ _____ ______ _________, __ ____________ __ _____ ___ __ ___, _ _Ļ____Ļ_______ ___ _____ _________ ___ ___________, ____ ____ _______, _______ _Ļ________ ________ ___ _________ ___ __ ________________ ___ _________ ___Ļ___ _________, ___ Ļ_____________ ______ ________ _________.  Concil. Antioch. Can. ii. Bevereg. Pand. p. 431.]

         Perhaps the like account may serve for the Apostolical Canons also, so far as concerns this article: Schelstrate was of that mind, and applied the same solution to both. [Schelstrate, ibid. p. 222.]  One of the Apostolical Canons orders, “That if any Bishop, Priest, or Deacon, or any of the sacerdotal college, does not communicate when there is a Communion, [oblation,] he shall be obliged to assign a reason; and if it be a just one, he shall be excused: otherwise he shall be suspended, as giving offence to the people, and as raising a suspicion upon the administrator, as if he did not salutarily execute his office.”*  The last words put me in mind of the fourth Canon of the Council of Gangra, held a few years before the Antiochian: some place it in 324, some in 330; all agree that it was not later than 340.  That Canon decrees, “That if any one takes exception to a married Presbyter, as such, thinking it not lawful to receive the Communion at his hands, let him be anathema.”**  Whether the Antiochian and Apostolical Canons might not have some view to that case, in what they decreed against any one’s turning his back on the Communion, I leave to the learned to consider.

         *[__ ___ _Ļ____Ļ__, _ Ļ__________, _ ________, _ __ ___ _________ ___ _________, Ļ________ _________, __ _________, ___ ______ __Ļ____ ___ ___ _______ _, _________ __________ __ __ __ ____, a_________, __ ______ ______ ________ __ ___, ___ _Ļ______ __Ļ______ ____ ___ Ļ_____________, __ __ _____ ____________.  Can. Apostol. vi, alias viii.]

         **[__ ___ ___________ Ļ___ Ļ__________ ___________, __ __ ______, _______________ _____, Ļ________ _____________, _______ ____.  Concil. Gangrens. Can. iv. Hard. p. 530.  Bevereg. Pand. tom. i. 419.]

         The next Canon called Apostolical makes a like order with respect to the laity, as the former had done with regard to the clergy: viz. “That as many of the faithful as came to Church, and did not abide all the time of the prayer and Communion, should be excommunicated, as guilty of raising disturbance in the Church.”*  It is hard to judge certainly of the particular drift or purport of such Canons, without a more explicit knowledge of the then present circumstances: but it is not likely that they were ever intended to oblige all the faithful to communicate as often as they came to Divine Service, or to abridge them of the reasonable liberty of judging how far they were prepared for it, and whether they might not sometimes (provided it were not customary, so as to amount to contempt) abstain from it.  Balsamon, in his Notes upon the Apostolical Canon last cited, calls it a very harsh decree [_________ __________ _____.  Balsam. in loc.]: and so indeed it is, if interpreted with utmost rigour.  But he intimates elsewhere, that the Greek Church in his time received it with a softening explication. [Vid. Beveregii Annot. in Apost. Can. ix. p. 21.]  Schelstrate, as before noted, has suggested another; and to both I have taken the liberty to subjoin a third.  It is not reasonable to think, that a modest and sober departure, before Communion began (a practice now common, and, I believe, always in use, more or less), could be looked upon as a disturbance: but if it was done out of dislike, or contempt, and upon factious principles, then indeed it would be apt to make great disturbance; and that very probably was what the compilers of those Canons were solicitous to prevent or remedy.  But I return.

         *[______ ____ _________ Ļ______ ___ ___ _____ ____ _________, ___ ___ _____ ______ _________, __ Ļ___________ __ __ Ļ_______ ___ __ ____ _________, __ _______ __Ļ________ __ ________, ___________ ___.  Can. Apostol. vii. alias ix.]

         I proceed in reciting the principles of the fourth century, with regard to frequent Communion.  Basil (about the year 372) being consulted on this head, declares it good and profitable to communicate every day; testifying withal, of the practice of the church of Caesarea, where he was, that they celebrated the Sacrament four times a week (on Sunday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday), besides the saints’ days, [festivals of martyrs,] as often as they occurred [Basil. Epist. xciii. (alias cclxxxix.) p. 186, ed. Bened. tom. iii.  Cp. Socrat. Eccles. Histor. lib. v. cap. 22.]: but he does not say how diligent or how constant the people were in attending upon it.

         Chrysostom, of the same century, somewhat later, will give us the best light, both with respect to the practice of that age, and the rules whereby it was conducted.  In one place of his works, he speaks thus: “Many partake of this sacrifice once a year, some twice, some oftener. – Which of them should we most approve of?  Those that communicate once, or those that do it often, or those that seldom do it?  Neither the once-comers, nor the often, nor the seldom, but those that come with a clean conscience, a pure heart, and a life unblamable, they that are so qualified should come constantly: but as to them that are not, once is too much for them.  And why so?  Because they will only receive to themselves judgment and condemnation, pains and penalties.” [Chrysostom. in Heb. Hom. xvii. p. 856, edit. Paris.]  Here we may observe how this good Father pressed upon his hearers the duty of constant Communion, but under caution of coining fitly prepared: otherwise he thought it would not be barely fruitless, but hurtful.  That was the standing rule of the Church, the settled principle which they constantly went upon, with respect to both Sacraments.  For, whatever high notions they might entertain of the use or necessity of Baptism, yet they never would encourage any person to receive it, before they believed him well qualified for it; but would sometimes keep the catechumens back, for five, or ten, or twenty years, or even to the hour of death, rather than admit them in a state of impenitence, or before they had been well disciplined and proved. [See Testimonies referred to in Bingham, xi. 6. 1.]  Sacraments were a good superstructure: but the foundation was first and principally to be looked to, the foundation of repentance and a good life.  Qualifications ought to go before admission: and service before privileges.  But I pass on.

         Chrysostom, in another Homily, reproves the non-communicants, and presses frequent Communion in the manner here following: “In vain stand we at the altar, none come to receive.  I speak not barely to persuade you to receive, but to make yourselves worthy.  You are not worthy [you will say] of the sacrifice, or not fit to receive?  Then neither are you worthy of the prayer: do you not hear the Deacon, when he stands up and proclaims, As many among you as are under penance, withdraw?  All that do not communicate, are supposed to be under penance.  If you are of the number of penitents, you must not receive: for he that does not receive is under penance.  Why does he [the Deacon] say, All ye that cannot pray, depart?  And why do you, after that, impudently stay?  You are not one of those, you will say, but of those who may receive.  Have you then no regard for that, or do you think it a slight privilege?  Consider, I beseech you, etc. – Every one that does not partake of the mysteries, is shameless and impudent to stand by all the while. – You sing the hymn with the rest, and you profess yourself one of the worthy, by your not departing with the unworthy.  With what face then can you presume to stay, and yet not partake of the table?  You plead, you are unworthy: you are therefore unworthy to join in the prayers, for the Holy Spirit descends, not only in the offering of the elements, but also in the chanting of the hymns.”*  Chrysostom here pleads for frequent Communion, in a strong affecting way, but still loses not sight of the main point, which was the receiving worthily.

         *[Chrysost. in Ephes. Hom. iii. pp. 887, 888.  N.B. The Communion hymns are by Goar (Euchol. p. 136) distinguished into four: 1. _____ _________.  The angelical.  “Glory to God on high,” etc.  2. _____ __________.  The cherubic hymn, in Goar, p. 206.  3. _____ _________Sanctus Deus, sanctus fortis, etc.  4. _____ _Ļ_______.  The triumphal hymn.  “Holy, holy, holy, Lord,” etc.  Isa. 6:3.  But the first and fourth are the most ancient: the second and third are both later than Chrysostom.  The three last are but one trisagium in the main, one cherubic, or seraphic hymn, with some variations, additions, and interpolations made at different times.  See Bingham, xiv. 2, 3; xv. 3, 9, 10.  Allix. Dissert. de Trisagii Origine.  Renaudot. Liturg. Collect. ton. i. p. 228. tom. ii. p. 69.]

         The argument he draws from prayer to Communion has been sometimes misunderstood, and may here deserve to be set right.  He does not mean that prayer in general requires the same preparation that the Communion does, or that every one who may properly be admitted to the former may as properly be admitted to the latter also.  No: that would run directly counter to the known principles and practice, and standing discipline of the Church in that age: for nothing was more usual than to admit penitents of the fourth order, to communion in prayers, for two, three, four, or sometimes five years, and all the while to debar them from the holy Communion, as not yet worthy to be admitted to it. [Concil. Ancyran. Can. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 24.  Concil. Nicen. Can. 11, 12, 13.  Basil. Can. 22, 30, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61, 66, 75, 82, 83.  Concil. Carthag. vi. Can. 11.  Concil. Trull. Can. 87.]  But what Chrysostom meant was, that it was very absurd, and even downright impudent, for a man to claim a right to stand by, all the while that the Communion was administering, and to join in those most sacred and mystical prayers and hymns, which were proper to it, and at the same time to pretend that he was not worthy of it: for, if he really was not worthy to receive, he was not worthy to be present during that holy solemnity, or to bear a part in the prayers which peculiarly belonged to it.  I know, it has been thought by persons of good learning, that the fourth order of penitents (called ____________, consistentes, in English co-standers, or associates) were allowed to be present during the whole solemnity, while prohibited from receiving, and that Sunday after Sunday, for several years together: which would have been committing that very absurdity which Chrysostom here so strongly remonstrates against.  But I take that prevailing notion to be all a mistake, owing to the want of a right understanding the ancient Canons and ancient phrases.  Those co-standers were allowed to communicate in prayers with the faithful.*  What prayers, is the question.  I suppose the prayers previous to the holy kiss, previous also to the oblation; which were indeed part of the Missa fidelium, or Communion Service (like to our prayer for the Church militant), but were not the proper mystical prayers belonging to the Communion, and of which Chrysostom is to be understood.  The co-standers, being the highest order of penitents, had the privilege to stand in the same place of the Church with the faithful, and to abide there, after the catechumens and lower penitents were dismissed; and they were permitted to communicate in prayer, till the oblation began, and then they also were to withdraw.  This I collect, as from several other circumstances, so particularly from hence, that the Deacons just before the salutation of peace, warned all non-communicants to withdraw.**  The co-standers must of course have been reckoned of that number, being forbid to communicate; and therefore they must have been obliged to withdraw after the preparatory prayers, and before the Communion, properly speaking, began.  Chrysostom himself intimates in another Homily, that all non-communicants were warned to depart;*** and that presently after came on the mystical hymn.  About that time the co-standers, as I conceive, withdrew.  Neither, indeed, is it credible, that so knowing a person as Chrysostom would have represented it as a flaming absurdity for a non-communicant to be present during the whole solemnity, had the custom of the Church allowed it in the co-standers, who were non-communicants.

         *[_____ __ _____ __________.  Concil. Ancyr. Can. iv.  __________ _____ Ļ________.  Ibid. Can. vi.  So in the Nicene Canons, and Basil’s, etc.  All that did not depart with the catechumens, after the Gospel, or with the penitents soon after, communicated in prayer, as appears by the Apostolical Constitutions.  __ _____________ __ __ __ Ļ_______, ___’ ____________ ____ ___ _________ ___ _____ ___ ___ Ļ_______ ___ ___ __________. lib. ii. cap. 39.  The Council of Laodicea distinctly mentions what prayers preceded the oblation.  Can. xix. p. 786, Harduin.]

         **[__ __ ____ _______ _ ________ Ļ________ Ļ__ ___ __Ļ______  __ ___________ Ļ___Ļ_______.  Timoth. Alex. Resp. ix. 1104, Hard.  __ ___ Ļ_____ _____ _________, Ļ________.  Apost. Constitut. lib. viii. cap. 12.  “Si quis non communicat, det locum.”  Gregor. M. Dial. lib. ii. cap. 23.]

         ***[__ ___ ___ ____________, __ ___ ___ __ _________, __ ___ ___ _______Ļ__, __ ___ ___ __ _________ _________ ___ ______ __________ ... __ ___ _______ ___ _____ ______, etc.  Chrysost. Homil. de PH. Prod. tom. vi. p. 375, Paris.]

         It may be objected, that Pope Siricius (about A.D. 385) allowed or ordered some non-communicants to abide till the whole service was over:* and Sozomen speaks of the custom of the western churches, as obliging the penitents to wait all the time of the Communion Service, in order to receive the Bishop’s absolution after it was ended.**  These are the principal passages which have led learned men into a persuasion, that the co-standers were used to be present during the whole solemnity.  But they did not observe, that the preparatory service was called the service, or the mass, and that the Communion, properly, began not till that service was ended, and the non-communicants were withdrawn.  Gregory Turonensis, of the sixth century, may help to clear this matter: he speaks of the Communion’s beginning after the masses or liturgies were ended.***  Cyprian, long before, spice much after the same way.****  And even Justin Martyr has made mention of the common prayers, as ended, before the Communion began, before the holy salutation: and soon after he takes notice of the subsequent prayers and thanksgivings proper to the Communion.*****  Those subsequent prayers were what Chrysostom spake of, as altogether improper for any to join in, or to be present at, except the communicants themselves.

         *[Diximus decernendum, ut sola intra ecclesiam fidelibus oratione jungantur; Sacris mysteriorum celebritatibus, quamvis non mereantur, intersint; a Dominicae autem mensae convivio segregentur,” etc.  Siric. Epist. p. 848, Harduin.]

         **[___________ ___ ___ ____ ___________.  Sozom. lib. vii. cap. 16, p. 300, edit. Cant.]

         ***[Ubi peractis solemnibus, ad sacrosanctum altarium communicandi gratia accessisset, etc.  Gregor. Turon, lib. ix. n. 3, p. 419.  “Cumque expletis missis, populus coepisset sacrosanctum corpus Redemptoris accipere.”  Greg. Turon. de Mirac. Mattin. lib. ii. cap. 47, p. 1060.  Cp. Mabillon de Liturg. Gallican. pp. 35, 36, 51.]

         ****[Ubi vero solennibus adimpletis, calicem diaconus offerre praesentibus coepit, etc.  Cyprian. de Laps. p. 132, edit. Oxon.]

         *****[________ ________ __Ļ_______, Ļ_________ ___ ______  _Ļ____ Ļ__________ __ Ļ________ ___ _______ _____, ___ Ļ_______ ______, ___ ________.  ___ _____ _____, _____ ___ _____ __ Ļ____ ___ ____, ___ ___ ________ ___ ____, ___ ___ Ļ________ ___ _____, ___Ļ__Ļ__.  Justin Mart. Apol. i. pp. 95, 96, edit. Thrilb.]

         A learned writer of our own observes that “what in Chrysostom’s time was reckoned a crime, was presently after accounted a piece of devotion, for the people to stay and hear the whole solemnity of the service, till the time of communicating, and then they might depart without partaking of the Communion: which was plainly a relaxation of the ancient discipline, and a deviation from the primitive practice.” [Bingham, xv. 4, 2.]  For this he refers to the Council of Agde of the year 506, and to the first Council of Orleans in 511.  I take not upon me to defend what was done in later times, but to clear Chrysostom’s argument, as consonant to the principles and practice of that age with respect to non-communicants, whether co-standers or others.  However, I must observe, with respect even to the Councils of Agde and Orleans, that no order was made for non-communicants to stay during the whole solemnity of the Communion: only, they were obliged to wait for the Bishop’s benediction (which was previous* to the most solemn part of the service), and then to depart.  So that though the dismission of the non-communicants might perhaps be deferred somewhat later now, than in Chrysostom’s time, yet dismissed they were before the Communion properly came on; and the absurdity which Chrysostom complained of, that of staying out the whole solemnity without communicating, never was admitted in those days.

         *[Vid. Bona de Reb. Liturg. lib. ii. cap. 16, n. 1, 2, p. 664, etc.  Mabillon de Liturg. Gallic. lib. i. cap. 4, n. 14, p. 35.  Calvoer. Ritual. Ecclesiast. vol. i. p. 713.  Bingham, xv. 3, 28, 29.]

         The principal use I had in view, by what I have here said, was to take off a kind of popular plea, which has been sometimes urged in the name of Chrysostom, that everyone who may be admitted to prayers, ought to be admitted to Communion also; and that there is no more reason for absenting from the Communion, on account of unfitness, than there is for absenting from prayers on the like account: for it is pleaded, that either a man is fit for both or for neither.  Chrysostom never said, or most certainly never meant any such thing: so that his authority ought to be out of the question.  As to the reason of the case, the plea can never hold upon that foot.  It is true, prayer requires some preparation; and a man may pray unworthily, as well as communicate unworthily: and his prayer, in such circumstances, may be vain and fruitless. [Prov. 15:8.  Isa. 1:15.]  But yet it is nowhere said, that he who prays unworthily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord, or that he shall draw down judgment upon himself by doing it.  Neither is all prayer so sacred and solemn as sacramental prayer, nor is any mere prayer a federal rite, like a Sacrament: nor does the want of due preparation in prayer (though a culpable neglect) so directly tend to frustrate the most sacred ties, and to turn all religion into hypocrisy and form, as the want of it in the other case does: therefore, the two cases are by no means parallel, but similar only, and that in great disproportion.  And hence it was (as I before hinted) that the ancients, while they admitted catechumens to some prayers, proper to them, and the lower degrees of penitents to prayers proper for them, and the highest order of penitents to some part of the Communion prayers, as not improper for them; yet they debarred even the best of them, sometimes, month after month, or year after year, as not yet worthy to receive the holy Communion.

         I may now proceed somewhat further with Chrysostom.  In another Homily, after he had been speaking of the danger of receiving unworthily, he adds, “I speak not this to deter you from coming, but from coming carelessly.  For, as there is danger in coming carelessly, so there is famine and death in the not partaking at all of the mystical supper.  This table is, as it were, the sinews of our souls, the girding up of the mind, the support of our confidence; our hope, our health, our light, our life.” [Chrysostom in 1 Cor. 10.  Hom. xxv. p. 262.]  Here the eloquent Father seems to make it not so bad to receive unworthily, as to forbear receiving at all: for he represents the one as dangerous, the other as fatal.  If so, the unworthy non-communicant would be in a worse condition than the unworthy communicant; and it would be safest to receive at all adventures: and if that were admitted, it would be hard to justify the ancient discipline with respect to either Sacrament.  But here we must answer with distinction.  Supposing the unworthiness equal in both, there is equally contempt in both cases, but not equal contempt; for the unworthy communicant is guilty of a greater contempt than the other, and is the most profane of the two, incurring greater damnation.  As it were better not to have known the way of life, than to go counter to it [2 Peter 2:21.]; so it were better never to take the Sacrament, than to profane it as constantly as we take it.  So then, to neglect it out of contempt is indeed famine and death: but still the other is more dangerous, as exposing the person to sorer death and more grievous punishment; which I take to be Chrysostom’s real meaning.  Nevertheless, if a man only suspects or doubts within himself, whether he is fit to receive, it will certainly be his safest way to receive; and his humble modesty, if really such, will itself be a commendable part of his preparation. [See Luke 18:13–14.]  The degrees of unworthiness are many and various, and no man is strictly worthy: a sincere, though for the present weak resolution to amend instantly in every known article of disobedience, seems to be ordinarily a sufficient security against the danger of receiving unworthily.

 

Century the Fifth.

         The first Council of Toledo, in the year 400, made an order about those who were observed never to come to Communion, that they should be admonished for such their habitual and total neglect, and if they did not reform, should be obliged to submit to penance. [“De his qui intrant in ecelesiam, et deprehenduntur nunquam comniunicare, admoneantur, ut, si non communicant, ad poenitentiam accedant,” etc.  Concil. Tolet. i. Can. 13.]  This decree appears very mild and moderate, as being pointed only against those who constantly absented, and as prescribing an admonition before the censure; and at length excommunicating those only, who had in a measure excommunicated themselves.  No doubt but such order might have a very good effect upon those who were barely supine and careless in that article, otherwise leading innocent lives.  But perhaps exhortation or admonition alone might have been sufficient to as many as were well disposed; and as to the rest, censure might be thought too much: for who shall force a man to repent?  Or how is it repentance, if it is not free?  Or what signifies the coming to the Lord’s table in hypocrisy?  These considerations have their weight: and therefore excommunication in such a case, so far as it is justifiable, must be maintained upon some general principle, such as the necessity of removing notorious offences or scandals, for fear of contagion to the rest, and for fear of bringing an infamy upon the whole body, by such connivance as might look too like an allowance of so shameful a neglect.  The general good of the Church, in some cases, ought to overrule all such considerations as have been before mentioned.  For example: there are, suppose, ten thousand officiating clergy in a nation, who may be obliged, by the laws of Church and State, to administer and to receive the holy Communion, so often, be they prepared or otherwise.  In such a number, some hundreds, it may be, may officiate and receive, not duly prepared.  Let them look to that: the Church is clear so far, because the necessity of the case and the general good so requires.  It would be trifling here to urge, that it is forcing men to profane the holy Sacrament, or forcing them to repent and amend.  That must be risked upon higher and more weighty considerations: for God’s people must not be deprived of the benefit of the Sacrament in such cases.  Therefore, I observed, that the considerations before mentioned have their weight; as indeed they ought to have; but so far only, as they are not opposed to other considerations of a more general nature, and of still greater weight.

         The same Council made a strict order that such of the resident clergy as came not to the daily prayers and Communion should be deposed, if they did not reform after admonition.*  By this we see that daily Communions were yet kept up in some churches.  Which appears likewise from the testimonies of Jerome** and Austin,*** of that time.  Some Christians of that age were so scrupulous in that matter, that they thought themselves under a strict obligation to communicate, if possible, every day: others thought otherwise; and St. Austin was consulted upon the question.  It was pleaded on the side of daily Communion, that every one ought to communicate as often as he worthily might; and that if he was not debarred by Church censures from it, he might be looked upon as worthy, the Church being judge of that case.  On the other side it was pleaded, that some particular chosen days, when a man might be most recollected, and best prepared, were preferable; for so the greater reverence would be shewn towards the Sacrament, and it would be more likely to answer its end and use.  St. Austin did not care to determine for either, but took a middle way to compromise the dispute; which was to advise both parties (as they intended the same thing in the main) to shew their reverence to the Sacrament in their different ways, according to their respective persuasions.  For, says he, “neither of them really dishonours the Lord’s body and blood, while both contend, only in a different way, who shall do most honour to the blessed Sacrament.  For neither did Zaccheus and the Centurion strive together, or one prefer himself before the other; when the former gladly received our Lord into his house, and the latter said, ‘I am not worthy that thou shouldest come under my roof:’ but both did honour to our Saviour in their several, or rather, contrary ways; both were sinners, and both found mercy. –  So here, one out of reverence dares not partake every day: another out of the like reverence, dares not omit it a single day: all is well, so long as there is no contempt in either case upon the holy Sacrament.”****  This resolution of St. Austin was most certainly very wise and just, suitable to the question as there stated, whether a man should communicate every day, or only upon some select days, when fittest for it.  But had the question been, whether it were sufficient for persons fitly prepared to communicate once or twice a year, or the like, he would have said no, but oftener; either every month, or every week, if opportunity offered.  Gennadius, who lived in the close of the same century (about A.D. 495), determined as cautiously about daily receiving, neither approving or disapproving it: but weekly receiving he spoke fully up to, recommending it as highly proper for all that were competently prepared, that is, for all that were sincerely penitent, and were not under any prevailing inclination to vice.*****

         *[“Clericus, si intra civitatem fuerit, vel in loco quo ecclesia est, aut castello, aut vico, aut villa, et ad ecelesiam ad sacrificium quotidianum non accesserit, clericus non habeatur, si castigatus per satisfactionem veniam ab episcopo noluerit promereri.”  Concil. Tolet. i. Can. 5.]

         **[Scio Romae hanc esse consuetudinem ut fideles semper Christi corpus accipiant: quod nec reprehendo, nec laudo; unusquisque enim in suo sensu abundat.”  Hieron. adv. Jovin. p. 239.  Cp. Ep. lii. ad Lucin. p. 579, ed. Bened.]

         ***[“Alii quotidie communicant corpori et sanguini Domini, alii certis diebus accipiunt. Augustin. Epist. ad Jan. liv. (alias cxviii.) p. 124. tom. ii. edit. Bened.]

         ****[“Neuter enim eorum exhonorat corpus et sanguinem Domini, sed saluberrimum sacramentum certatim honorare contendunt.  Neque enim litigaverunt inter se, aut quisquam eorum se alteri praeposuit Zachaeus et ille Centurio, cum alter eorum gaudens in domum suam susceperit Dominum.  Alter dixerit; Non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum: ambo Salvatorem honorificantes diverso, et quasi contrario, modo; ambo peccatis miseri, ambo misericordiam consecuti. ... Ille honorando non audet quotidie sumere; et ille honorando non audet ullo die praetermittere.  Contemptum solum non vult cibus iste,” etc.  Augustin. ibid. p. 125.]

         *****[Quotidie Eucharistiae communionem percipere nec laudo nec vitupero: omnibus tamen Dominicis diebus communicandum suadeo et hortor; si tamen mens in affectu peccandi non sit.  Nam habentem adhuc voluntatem peccandi, gravari magis dico Eucharistiae perceptione, quam purificari.  Et ideo quamvis quis peccato mordeatur, peccandi non habeat de caetero voluntatem, et communicaturus satisfaciat lacrymis et orationibus, et confidens de Domini miseratione, qui peccata piae confessioni donare consuevit, accedat ad Eucharistiam intrepidus et securus.  Sed hoc de illo dico, quem capitalia et mortalia peccata non gravant. Gennad. Massil. inter August. Opp. tom. viii. App. p. 78. ed. Bened.]

 

Century the Sixth.

         In the beginning of this century (about A.D. 506) the Council of Agde, in Gaul, obliged the laity to receive three times a year at least, at the three great festivals, Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide.*  It is the first precedent of that kind: and some very pious and serious Christians have wished, that it never had been set, because it might furnish an handle to many for imagining that they were under no obligation to greater frequency.  But the Council designed no such inference; which at best is but a perverse construction of the thing: only, they considered, that to oblige all persons to receive weekly was impracticable: and to exhort them to frequency at large, without specifying any certain times, was doing nothing; and that if ordinary Christians were left to themselves, they would not, probably, communicate so often as thrice in the year, nor twice.

         *[“Seculares, qui Natali Domini, Pascha, et Pentecosten, non communicaverint, Catholici non credantur, nec inter Catholicos habeantur.”  Concil. Agathens. Can. xviii. p. 1000. Hard.]

         Other Councils later in the same century revived the more ancient rules: the Councils of Braccara and Luca, in Spain (A.D. 572) approved of the collection of old canons drawn up by Martinus Braccarensis; among which is the Second Antiochian canon, above recited, being the eighty-third in this collection.*  Afterwards, the second Council of Macon (A.D. 585) endeavoured to reinforce weekly communions, obliging both men and women to communicate every Lord’s Day, under pain of anathema:** which was severe enough, unless we may understand it only as opposed to absenting in way of scorn or contempt.

         *[It is thus worded: “Si quis intrat Ecclesiam Dei, et sacras Scripturas audit, et pro luxuria sua avertit se a communione sacramenti, et in observandis mysteriis declinat constitutam regulam disciplinae, istum talem projiciendum de Ecclesia Catholica decernimus, etc.  Concil. Braccarens. et Lucens. Can. lxxxiii. Hard. tom. iii. p. 400.]

         **[Decernimus, ut omnibus Dominicis diebus, altaris oblatio ab omnibus viris et mulieribus offeratur tam panis quam vini, ut per has immolationes, et peccatorum fascibus careant, et cum Abel, vel caeteris justis offerentibus, promereantur esse consortes.  Omnes autem qui definitiones nostras per inobedientiam evacuare contendunt, anathemate percellantur. Concil. Matiscon. II. Can. iv. Hard. tom. iii. p. 461.]

 

Century the Seventh.

         I may here take notice, that the Council of Autun, in the year 670, [Concil. Augustodunens. Can. xiv. Hard. tom. iii. p. 1015.] revived the above-mentioned canon of the Council of Agde, about communicating three times a year, at the three great festivals.  In this century, the Greeks used to communicate weekly; and such as neglected three weeks together were excommunicated: but in the Church of Rome, the people were left more to their own liberty.*

         *[“Graeci omni Dominica die communicant, sive Clerici sive Laici, et qui tribus Dominicis non communicaverint, excommunicantur.  Romani similiter communicant qui volunt, qui autem noluerint, non excommunicantur.”  Theodor. Poenitential. p. 46.]

 

Century the Eighth.

         Venerable Bede, in his epistle to Ecgbriht Archbishop of York, in the year 734, has a passage to our purpose, worth the noting.  He writes thus: “The teachers ... should instruct the people, how salutary daily communions might be to all kinds of Christians; a point which the Church of Christ through Italy, Gaul, Africa, Greece, and the whole East, have much laboured, as you well know.  This solemn service of religion, and devout sanctification to Godward, is so far sunk almost among all the laity, by negligence of their teachers, that even those among them who appear to have a more than ordinary sense of religion, yet presume not to partake of those holy mysteries but upon the Nativity, Epiphany, and Easter: though there are innumerable persons of very innocent and chaste conversation, boys and girls, young men and maidens, old men and matrons, who, without the least scruple of doubt, might well receive every Lord’s Day, or over and above, upon all the festivals, whether of Apostles or Martyrs; as you have seen with your own eyes, in the holy apostolical Church of Rome.”*

         *[“... quam salutaris sit omni Christianorum generi quotidiana Dominici corporis ac sanguinis perceptio; juxta quod Ecclesiam Christi per Italiam, Galliam, Africam, Graeciam, ac totum Orientem solerter agere nosti.  Quod videlicet genus religionis ac Deo devotae sanctificationis tam longe cunctis pene nostrae provinciae laicis, per incuriam docentium, quasi prope peregrinum abest, ut hi qui inter religiosiores esse videntur, non nisi in Natali Domini, et Epiphania, et Pascha sacrosanctis mysteriis communicare praesumant; cum sint innumeri innocentes et castissimae conversationis pueri et puellae, juvenes et virgines, senes et anus, qui absque ullo scrupulo controversiae omni die Dominico, sive etiam in natalitiis sanctorum Apostolorum, sive Martyrum (quomodo ipse in sancta Romana et Apostolica Ecclesia fieri vidisti) mysteriis caelestibus communicare valeant. Bed. Epist. ad Ecgbert. p. 311, edit. Cant.]

         From this remarkable paragraph, we may observe, that even so late as the eighth century, daily communions were still kept up, among some of the Clergy at least; and that all the Christian Churches, or Church guides of best note, wished to have the like prevail among the laity, and bad laboured that point as far as they could: but as that was impracticable, hopes however were conceived, that weekly communions, and more, might yet take place, if due care were taken; and that it was in some measure owing to the remissness of pastors, that communion was grown so rare and uncommon among the laity of the better sort; who neglected the communion, when competently qualified for it, only for want of opportunity, or for want of being reminded of it and exhorted to it, or else out of ignorance, supineness, or the like, more than out of any dislike to it or unfitness for it: which may also be the case at this very day.

         What has been here offered may be sufficient, I conceive, to give a competent idea of the state of frequent communion, for the first eight centuries: and I need not go lower; except it be to throw in a word or two of what has been done, as to this article, since the Reformation.

         The Lutherans, we are told, by one that declares he is well assured of it,* do in this particular excel all other Protestants: for they have a communion every Sunday and holyday throughout the year.  Calvin and Beza, and the French, churches, laboured to restore monthly or weekly communions; but strictly insisted upon four times a year, under pain of contempt. [Bingham, French Church’s Apology, c. xiv.  L’Arroque, Conformity of the Reformed Churches of France, p. 246.]  Our own Church has taken good care about frequent communion, time after time. [See Wheatly on the Common Prayer, p. 326.]  She has been one while charged as doing too little, and another while charged as doing too much: an argument that she has competently observed the golden mean.  But in complicated cases, where there is no passing any certain judgment, without a large comprehensive view of a vast variety of circumstances, it is impossible to please everybody, or even to satisfy all the honest and well-deserving.  In Queen Elizabeth’s time, Mr. Cartwright managed the charge of remissness against us in that article: he would have had the generality obliged to communicate constantly (except in cases of infirmity or necessity), under pain of ecclesiastical censure, yea, and of civil penalties. [Cartwright, Reply to Whitgift, p. 117.  Reply to Whitgift’s Defence, part ii. p. 148.]  Dr. Whitgift, on the other hand, pleaded for moderate counsels and convenient discipline, considering the end and use, and how it might best be attained. [Whitgift, Defence of his Answer to the Admonition, p. 530, etc.  Compare Hooker, book v. sect. 68.]

         *[Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part ii. p. 151.  But compare Calvoer, a Lutheran, who gives but an indifferent account of the number of their communicants, being left to their own liberty, and no particular times strictly insisted on.  Calvoer. de Rit. Eccl. tom. i. p. 758.]

         It is well known what canons have been since made to enforce frequent communion [Canons of 1603.  Can. 13, 21, 22, 23, 24, 112.]: moderate enough, if compared with ancient canons, or even with those of other Reformed churches.  For no express mention is made of excommunicating for neglect, but the affair is in a great measure left to the prudential care of the Diocesan, as is just and proper.  Nevertheless, exceptions have been taken to the severity of those canons: and the charge has been well answered by our learned Divines, [Falkner, Libert. Eccl. book i. c. 5. p. 205, etc.  Sherlock, Defence of Stillingfleet, p. 119.  Bingham, French Church’s Apol. book iii. c. 14.] so that there is no occasion now to enter into that dispute.  However, I am persuaded that instruction and exhortation, generally, are the best and most effectual methods of promoting frequent communion, so as to make it answer its true end and use.  The most religious kind of persons will of course communicate as often as they have opportunity: the impenitent or irreligious will not choose to communicate at all; neither is it fit that they should, because, while they continue such, it would do them no good, but harm.  There remain only the supine, careless, and ignorant, but well-disposed (such as Bede, before cited, spake of), who perhaps make up the main body of Christians: and they are to be dealt with in a tender, engaging manner, either by exhortations from the pulpit, or by private instruction, or by putting good books into their hands.  Much probably might be done, in this way, towards reviving frequent communions, if suitable care and diligence were used in it.  But I have said enough on this article, and it is now time to conclude.  I once thought of adding a chapter upon the comportment proper at and after receiving the communion: but these papers are already drawn out into a length beyond what I at first suspected; and I may the more conveniently omit what relates to the demeanour proper at and after receiving, since it is well provided for by most of the little manuals which are in every one’s hands, and particularly by Bishop Taylor’s Worthy Communicant, chapter the seventh.

         What I have endeavoured all the way, has been to maintain the dignity of a venerable sacrament, by the light of reason, Scripture, and antiquity, against unreasonable attempts to depreciate or undervalue it.  The common methods of subversion begin with lessening the work of preparation, and then go on to sink the benefits: the next step in the progress is to reduce the whole to a bare memorial, a memorial of an absent friend, master, or chief martyr: passing over the Divine perfections of our Lord, and the all-sufficient merits of what he has clone and suffered for us.  Now in order to build up again, as others pull down, the business of these papers has been to shew, that the sacramental memorial is a memorial of Christ God-man, who died a willing sacrifice for the sins of mankind; and that it is not a bare memorial, or representation of something once done and suffered, but a real and present exhibition of the grades, comforts, or blessings accruing therefrom, to every worthy receiver: that therefore proper acknowledgments and engagements are expected from us, and those require suitable preparations and qualifications, and a deportment thereto corresponding; in a word, self-examination and self-approbation beforehand, serious resolutions of amendment at the time, and a conscientious care afterwards, to persevere in well-doing to our lives’ end.

 

The Doctrinal Use of the Christian Sacraments Considered in a Charge

Delivered to the Middlesex Clergy, May 12, 1736

 

A Charge Delivered to the Middlesex Clergy.

Reverend Brethren,

         As it hath been customary, upon these occasions, to recommend some important point of Christianity; so I take the liberty to offer to your thoughts, at this juncture, the consideration of the Christian Sacraments.  Not that I can have room, in a short discourse, to enter into the heart of the subject: but the time perhaps may permit me to single out some collateral article, of moderate compass, and to throw in a few incidental reflections, tending to illustrate the value and dignity of those Divine ordinances, and to preserve in our minds a just regard and veneration for them.

         When we duly consider the many excellent ends and purposes for which these holy Sacraments were ordained, or have been found in fact to serve, through a long succession of ages, we shall see great reason to adore the Divine wisdom and goodness in the appointment of them.  They are of admirable use many ways; either for confirming our faith in the Christian religion at large, and the prime articles of it; or for promoting Christian practice in this world; or for procuring eternal happiness in a world to come.

         I shall confine my present views to the first particular, the subservience of the Sacraments to true and sound faith: which, though it may be looked upon as a bye-point, and for that reason hath not been so commonly insisted upon; may yet be of weight sufficient to deserve some consideration at this time.

         I.  Give me leave then to take notice, in the first place, that the Sacraments of the Church have all along been, and are to this day, standing monuments of the truth of Christianity against Atheists, Deists, Jews, Turks, Pagans, and all kinds of infidels.  They bear date as early as the Gospel itself; and have continued, without interruption, from the days of their Founder.  They proclaim to the world, that there once was such a person as Christ Jesus; that he lived, and died, and was buried, and rose again; and that he erected a Church, and drew the world after him, maugre all opposition (which could never have been effected without many and great miracles); and that he appointed these ordinances for the preserving and perpetuating the same Church, till his coming again.  The two Sacraments, in this view, are abiding memorials of Christ and of his religion, and are of impregnable force against unbelievers, who presume either to call in question such plain facts, or to charge our most holy religion, as an invention of men.

         II.  But besides this general use of the Sacraments against unbelievers, they have been further of great service all along, for the supporting of particular doctrines of prime value, against misbelievers of various kinds; as may appear by an historical deduction all the way down from the earliest ages of the Church to the present times.

         No sooner did some misbelieving Christians* of the apostolical age endeavour to deprave the true Gospel doctrine of God made man, rejecting our Lord’s humanity, but the Sacrament of the Eucharist, carrying in it so indisputable a reference to our Lord’s real flesh and blood, bore testimony against them with a force irresistible.  They were so sensible of it, that within a while they forbore coming either to the holy Communion, or to the prayers that belonged to it,** merely for the sake of avoiding a practice contradictory to their principles.  However, this was sufficient intimation to every honest Christian, of the meanest capacity, that their principles must be false, which obliged them in consequence to vilify and reject the plain and certain institutions of Christ.  There was no need of entering into the subtleties of argument; for the thing declared itself, and left no room for dispute.  Such was the valuable use of this Sacrament, at that time, for supporting truth and detecting error, for the confirming the faithful in the right way, and for confounding seducers.

         *[The Docetae, or Phantasiastae, whom in English we may call Visionaries; men that would not admit that our Lord assumed real flesh and blood, but in appearance only; considering him as a walking phantom or apparition, in order to take off the scandal of the cross, or for other as weak reasons.  Some short account of them may be seen in my Importance, vol. iii. pp. 402, 547, or a larger and more distinct one in Buddaeus’s Eccles. Apostol. pp. 550–570.]

         **[___________ ___ Ļ________ _Ļ_______, ___ __ __ _________ ___ ___________ _____ _____ ___ _______ ____ _____ _______, etc.  Ignat. ad Smyrn. c. vii. p. 4.  Le Clerc well comments upon this passage: “Quod quidem convenienter ceterae suae doctrinae faciebant: cum enim Eucharistia sit instituta ad celebrandum memoriam corporis Christi pro nobis fracti, et sanguinis effusi, non poterat celebrari, ex instituto Christi, ab hominibus qui mortuum non esse Christum putabant, nisi sibi ipsi contradicerent.”  Eccl. Hist. pp. 568, 569.]

         III.  In the century next following, the Valentinian Gnostics corrupted the faith of Christ more ways than one, but particularly in pretending that this lower or visible world was not made by God most high, but by some inferior power or aeon.  Here again the Sacrament of the Eucharist was of signal service for the confuting such wild doctrine, and for the guarding sincere Christians against the smooth insinuations of artful disputers.  It was very plain, that the bread and wine in that Sacrament were presented before God, as his creatures and his gifts; which amounted, in just construction, to a recognizing him as their true Creator: and it was absurd to imagine that God should accept of, and sanctify to heavenly purposes, creatures not his own.*  Besides, our Lord had chosen these creatures of the lower world to represent his own body and blood, and called them his body and blood, as being indeed such in Divine construction and beneficial effect to all worthy receivers: a plain argument that he looked upon them as his own and his Father’s creatures, and not belonging to any strange creator, with whom neither he nor his Father had anything to do.

         *[Tertullian afterwards makes use of the same argument, against the same error, as espoused by the Marcionites: and he strengthens it further, by taking in the other Sacrament also.  “Sed ille quidem (Deus noster) usque nunc nec aquam reprobavit Creatoris, qua suos abluit ... nec panem quo ipsum corpus suum repraesentat.”  Contra Marcion. lib. i. cap. 14.]

         These arguments, drawn from the holy Eucharist, were triumphantly urged against those false teachers, by an eminent Father of that time:* who, no doubt, made choice of them as the most affecting and sensible of any; being more entertaining than dry criticisms upon texts, or abstracted reasonings, and more likely to leave strong and lively impressions upon the minds of common Christians.  At the same time they served to expose the adversaries to public shame, as appearing along with others at the holy Communion, while they taught things directly contrary to the known language of that Sacrament.

         *[“Nostra autem consonans est sententia Eucharistiae, et Eueliaristia rursus confirmat sententiam nostrum: offerimus enim ei quae sunt ejus.”  Iren. lib. iv. cap. 18. p. 251. edit. Bened.  Cp. cap. p. 270.  Cp. Tertull. contra Marcion. lib. i. cap. 14.]

         IV.  The same deceivers, upon some specious pretenses (but such as no cause can want, that does not want artful pleaders), took upon them to reject the doctrine of the resurrection of the body; conceiving that the unbodied soul only had any concern in a life to come.*  Here again, the Sacrament of the Eucharist was a kind of armour of proof against the seducers.  For as the consecrated bread and wine were the authentic symbols of Christ’s body and blood, and were, in construction and certain effect (though not in substance), the same with what they stood for, to all worthy receivers; it was manifest, that bodies so incorporated with the body of Christ must of course be partners with it in a glorious resurrection.  Thus was the Eucharist considered as a sure and certain pledge to all good men of the future resurrection of their bodies, symbolically fed with the body of Christ.  For like as the branches partake of the vine, and the members of the head, so the bodies of the faithful, being by the Eucharist incorporate with Christ’s glorified body, must of consequence appertain to it, and be glorified with it.  This is the argument which the Christian Fathers** of those times insisted upon, and with this they prevailed; as it was an argument easily understood*** and sensibly felt (by as many as had any tender regard for the Sacraments of the Church), and as it expressed to the life the inconsistent conduct of the new teachers, proclaiming them to be self-condemned.  Wherefore they were put in mind over and over, to correct either their practice or their principles; and either to come no more to the holy Communion, or to espouse no more such doctrines as were contrary to it.****

         *[Basilides, probably of the first century, taught this doctrine.  Iren. lib. i. cap. 24. p. 102.  Afterwards, Cerdo also, and Marcion, lib. i. cap. 27. p. 106.  The Valentinian Gnostics also taught the same, lib. v. cap. 1. p. 292.]

         **[Ignat. Epist. ad Ephes. cap. xx. p. 19.  Iren. lib. iv. cap. 18. p. 251. lib. v. cap. 2. p. 294.  Tertull. de Resurr. Carnis, cap. viii. p. 330. Rigalt.  Cp. Athanas. Epist. iv. ad Serap. p. 710. ed. Bened.]

         ***[Notwithstanding the plainness of the argument, a very learned and ingenious Lutheran declares, that he does not understand it, can make no sense or consequence of it.  (Pfaff: Notae in Iren. Fragm. 84, 85.) I suppose the reason is, because it agrees not with the Lutheran notion of the presence: for indeed, as such corporal or local presence supposes Christ’s body and blood to be received by all communicants, both good and bad, Irenaeus’s arguments will by no means favour that hypothesis, nor consist with it.  His reasoning will extend only to good men, real members of Christ’s body, men whose bodies, by the Eucharist worthily received (perseverance supposed) are made abiding members of Christ’s body, flesh, and bones.  The argument, so stated, proves the resurrection of such persons; and it is all that it directly proves: which however was sufficient against those who admitted no resurrection of the body, but denied all. ... N.B. The argument is of as little force on the hypothesis of transubstantiation; as is plain from what has been hinted of the other.]

         ****[_ ___ ______ ___________ _ __ Ļ_________ __ ________ Ļ_____________.  ____ __ ________ _ _____ __ __________, ___ _ __________ ... _______ ___ ______.  Iren. lib. iv. cap. 18. p. 251.]

         V.  In the same century, or beginning of the next, when the Marcionites revived the old pretenses of the Visionaries, rejecting our Lord’s humanity; the Eucharist still served, as before, to confound the adversaries: for it was impossible to invent any just reply to this plain argument, that our Lord’s appointing a memorial to be observed, of his body broken and of his blood shed, must imply, that he really took part of flesh and blood, and was in substance and in truth what the Sacrament sets forth in symbols and figures.*

         *[Acceptum panem, et distributum discipulis, corpus illum suum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum, dicendo; id est figura corporis mei.  Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus: ceterum vacua res, quod est phantasma, figuram capere non posset.”  Tertull. adv. Marc. lib. iv. c. 40. p. 458.  Cp. Pseud. Orig. Dial. contr. Marcion. lib. iv. p. 853. ed. Bened.]

         VI.  When the Encratitae, or Continents, of the second century (so called from their overscrupulous abstemiousness) had contracted odd prejudices against the use of wine, as absolutely unlawful; the Sacrament of the Eucharist was justly pleaded, as alone sufficient to correct their groundless surmises [Vid. Clem. Alex. Paedag. lib. ii. cap. 2. p. 186.  Strom. lib. i. p. 359.]: but rather than part with a favourite principle, they chose to celebrate the Communion in water only, rejecting wine; and were from thence styled Aquarians. [Epiphan. Haeres. xlvii. 3.  Theodorit. Haeret. Fab. lib. i. cap. 21.  Philastrius, Haer. lxxvii. p. 146.  Augustinus, Haer. cap. lxiv.]  Which practice of theirs served however to detect their hypocrisy, and to take off the sheep’s clothing: for nobody could now make it any question, whether those so seemingly conscientious and self-denying teachers were really deceivers, when they were found to make no scruple of violating a holy Sacrament, and running directly counter to the express commands and known practice of Christ their Lord.

         VII.  When the Praxeans, Noetians, and Sabellians, of the second and third centuries, presumed to innovate in the doctrine of the Trinity, by reducing the three Persons of the Godhead to one; then the Sacrament of Baptism remarkably manifested its doctrinal force, to the confusion of .those misbelievers.  There was no resisting the pointed language of the sacramental form, which ran distinctly in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [Vid. Tertull. adv. Prax. cap. 26, 27.  Hippol. contra Noet. cap. xiv. p. 16.]  It seems that those men being conscious of it did therefore change our Lord’s form, and baptized in a new one of their own [Vid. Beyereg. Vindic. Can. lib. ii. cap. 6. p. 252.  Bingham, Eccles. Antiq. lib, xi. cap. 3. p. 7.]; not considering, that that was plunging deeper than before, and adding iniquitous practice to ungodly principles.  But the case was desperate, and they had no other way left to make themselves appear consistent men.  In the meanwhile, their carrying matters to such lengths could not but make their false doctrine the more notorious to all men, and prevent its stealing upon honest and well disposed Christians, by ignorance or surprise.  Such was the seasonable use of the Sacrament of Baptism in that instance; detecting error, and obstructing its progress, and strongly supporting the true faith.

         VIII.  When the Arians, of the fourth century, took upon them to deprave the doctrine of the Trinity in an opposite extreme, by rejecting the Deity of our Saviour Christ, “who is over all, God blessed forever” [Rom. 9:5.]; then again the same Sacrament of Baptism reclaimed against novelty, and convicted the misbelievers in the face of the world.  It was obvious to every impartial and considering man, that the form of Baptism ran equally in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and that it could never be intended to initiate Christ’s disciples in the belief and worship of God and two creatures. [A full account of this argument may be seen in Bishop Stillingfleet on the Trinity, ch. ix. or in my eighth sermon per tot. vol. ii. or in Athanasius, pp. 510, 633. ed. Bened.]  The new teachers however, in prudence, thought proper to continue the old form of baptizing, till the Eunomians, their successors, being plainer men, or being weary of a practice contradictory to their principles, resolved at length to set aside the Scripture form, and to substitute others more agreeable to their sentiments. [Epiphan. Haer. lxxvi.  Greg. Nyssen. contr. Eunom. lib. x. p. 278.  Theodorit. Haeret. Fab. lib. iv. cap. 3.  Socrates, Eccl. Hist. lib. v. cap. 24.  Theodorus, Lect. lib. xi. p. 576. ed. Cant.]  This was intimation sufficient to every well-disposed Christian to be upon his guard against the new doctrines, which were found to drive men to such desperate extremities.  For now no man of ordinary discernment, who had any remains of godliness left in him, could make it matter of dispute, whether he ought to follow Eunomius or Christ.

         There was a further use made of both Sacraments, by way of argument, in the Arian controversy.  For when the Arians pleaded, that the words “I and my Father are one” meant no more than an unity of will or consent, inasmuch as all the faithful were said to be one with Christ and with each other, on account of such unity of consent; the argument was retorted upon them in this manner: that as Christ had made himself really one with us, by taking our flesh and blood upon him in the incarnation; so again he had reciprocally made us really one with himself by the two Sacraments.  For in Baptism we put on Christ, and in the Eucharist we are made partakers of his flesh and blood: and therefore the union of Christ’s disciples with the Head, and with each other (though far short of the essential union between Father and Son) was more than a bare unity of will or consent; being a real, and vital, and substantial union, though withal mystical and spiritual.  Thus Hilary of Poictiers (an eminent Father of that time) retorted the argument of the adversaries; throwing off their refined subtleties, by one plain and affecting consideration, drawn from the known doctrine of the Christian Sacraments. [Hilarius de Trinit. lib. viii. p. 951, etc.  Cp. Cyrill. Alexandr. de Trin. Dial. i. p. 407.]

         IX.  About the year 360 rose up the sect of Macedonians, otherwise called Pneumatomachi, impugners of the Divinity of the Holy Ghost.  They were a kind of Semi-Arians, admitting the Divinity of the second Person, but rejecting the Divinity of the third, and in broader terms than the Arians before them had done.  However, the Sacrament of Baptism stood full in their way, being a lasting monument of the true Divinity of the third Person as well as of the second: and by that chiefly were the generality of Christians confirmed in the ancient faith, and preserved from falling into the snares of seducers. [See St. Basil on this argument, De Spiritu Sancto, cap. 10, 12, 27, 29.]

         X.  About the year 370, or a little sooner, the sect of Apollinarians began to spread new doctrines, and to make some noise in the world.  Among sundry other wrong tenets, they had this conceit, that the manhood of our Saviour Christ was converted into or absorbed in his Godhead.  For they imagined, that by thus resolving two distinct natures into one, they should the more easily account for the one Person of Christ; not considering that the whole economy of man’s redemption was founded in the plain Scripture doctrine of a Saviour both God and man.  In opposition to those dangerous tenets, the learned and eloquent Chrysostom (A.D. 405, circ.) made use of an argument drawn from the Sacrament of the Eucharist, to this effect; that the representative body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist (sanctified by Divine grace, but not converted into Divine substance) plainly implied, that the natural body of Christ, though joined with the Godhead, was not converted into Godhead: for like as the consecrated bread, though called Christ’s body on account of its sanctification, did not cease to be bread; so the human nature of Christ, though dignified with the Divine, did not cease to be the same human nature which it always was.*  We may call this either an argument or an illustration; for indeed it is both under different views.  Considered as a similitude, it is an illustration of a case: but at the same time is an argument to skew, that the Apollinarians were widely mistaken in imagining that a change of qualities, circumstances, or names, inferred a change of nature and substance.  Bread was still bread, though for good reasons dignified with the name of the Lord’s Body: and the man Christ was still man, though for good reasons (that is, on account of a personal union) dignified with the title of God.  Thus the Sacrament of the Eucharist, being a memorial of the incarnation, and a kind of emblem of it, was made use of to explain it, and to confirm the faithful in the ancient belief of that important article.  But I proceed.

         *[“Sicut enim, antequam sanctificetur panis, panem nominamus, Divina autem sanctificante gratia, mediante sacerdote, liberatus est quidem appellatione panis, dignus autem habitus est Dominici corporis appellatione, etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit; et non duo corpora, sed unum corpus Filii praedicatur: sic et hic Divina ___________ (id est, inundante) corpori natura, unum Filium, unam Personam, utraque haec fecerunt; agnoscendum tamen inconfusam et indivisibilem rationem, non in una solum natura, sed in duabus perfectis.”  Chrysost. Epist. ad Caesar. Monach. pp. 7, 8. ed. Harduin.  As to what concerns this Epistle, and our debates with the Romanists upon it, the reader may consult, if he pleases, besides Harduin, Erich Spanlieim. Opp. tom. i. p. 844.  Le Moyne, Varia Sacra, tom. i. p. 530.  Wake’s Defence ag. M. de Meaux, printed 1686.  Fabricii Bibl. Graec. tom. i. p. 433.  Le Quien, Dissect. Damascen. p. 48. et in Notis, p. 270.  Zornii Opusc. Sacr. tom. i. p. 727.]

         **[Vid. Justin. Mart. Dial. p. 290.  Apol. i. p. 96. ed. Thirlby.  N.B. The Eucharist was anciently considered as a kind of emblem of the incarnation, but in a loose general way: for like as there is an heavenly part and an earthly part here, so it is also there; and like as Divine grace together with the elements make the Eucharist, so the Divine Logos with the manhood make God incarnate.  But then the analogy or resemblance ought not to be strained beyond the intention of it: for there is this observable difference in the two cases; that in one case there is barely a conjunction or concomitance of the two natures, and that to the worthy receivers only: in the other, there is an absolute, permanent, and personal union.  So then the Eucharist is but a faint, imperfect emblem of the other.]

         XI.  About the year 410, Pelagius opened the prejudices which he had for some time privately entertained against the Church’s Doctrine of original sin: but the Sacrament of Baptism looked him full in the face, and proved one of the most considerable obstacles to his progress.  The prevailing practice had all along been to baptize infants: and the Church had understood it to be baptizing them for remission of sin.  The inference was clear and certain, and level to the capacity of every common Christian.  Wherefore this single argument had weight sufficient to bear down all the abstracted subtleties and laboured refinements of Pelagius and his associates, and proved one of the strongest securities to the Christian faith so far, during that momentous controversy. [A full and distinct account of this whole matter may be seen either in Vossius, Hist. Pelagian. ii. par. 1 Thess. 5. Opp. tom. vi. p. 603, etc. or in Dr. Wall’s Hist. of Infant Baptism, part i. ch. 29.]

         XII.  About the year 430 appeared the Nestorian heresy: which, dividing the manhood of our Lord from the Godhead, made in effect two Persons, or two Christs.  Here the Sacrament of the Eucharist was again called in, to compose the difference, and to settle the point in question.  For since the virtue and efficacy of the representative body was principally founded in the supposed personal union of the real body with the Divine nature of our Lord, it would be frustrating or evacuating all the efficacy of the Eucharist, to divide the manhood, in such a sense, from the Godhead. [Vid. Cyrill. Alex. Epist. ad Nestor. p. 1290.  Anathem. xi. p. 1294. cum Cyrill. Explan. apud Hardnin. Concil.  Cp. Albertin. de Eucharist. p. 754.]  The argument was just and weighty, and could not fail of its due effect among as many as had any tender regard for so divine and comfortable a Sacrament.

         XIII.  Within twenty years after, came up the Eutychian heresy; which, in the contrary extreme, so blended the Godhead and manhood together, as to make but one nature of both, after the example of the Apollinarians, whom I before mentioned.  The Sacrament of the Eucharist was of eminent service in this cause also: for if the bread and wine in that Sacrament are what they have been called (and as constantly believed to be) symbols and figures of Christ’s body and blood, then it is certain that our Lord really put on flesh and blood, and that his human nature was and is distinct from his Divine.  To say, that “the Word was made flesh,” or that the flesh was converted into the Word, in such a sense as to leave no distinct humanity, was as much as to say, that the Sacraments now make us not “members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones” [Ephes. 5:30.]; and that the Eucharist in particular is an insignificant show, or worse, either not representing the truth of things, or representing a falsehood.  Such was the argument made use of in the Eutychian controversy [The reader may see the ancient testimonies collected and commented upon in Albertinus, pp. 802, 835, 836, 867, 868, 874, 886.]: a plainer or stronger there could not be; nor any wherein the generality of Christians could think themselves more deeply concerned.

         XIV.  Long after this, in the eighth century, endeavours were employed by many to bring in the worship, or at least the use, of images into churches.  In this case also, the Sacrament of the Eucharist was seasonably pleaded, for the giving some check to the growing corruption.  The good Fathers of Constantinople, in the year 754, meeting in council to the number of 338, argued against images to this effect: that as our Lord had appointed no visible image of himself, his incarnation, or passion, but the eucharistic one, and probably intended that for a most effectual bar, to preclude all appearances of idolatry; it would be high presumption in men, without warrant, without occasion, and against the very design of our Lord in that Sacrament, to introduce any other kind of images of their own devising [Vid. Acta Concil. Nicaen. secundi, tom. iii. vers. finem.].  The opposite party, some time after (A.D. 787) in the second Council of Nice, eluded this plain reasoning, by pretending, falsely, that the sacred symbols are not the image of Christ’s body and blood, but the very body and blood:* and thus they laid the seeds of that error, which grew up at length by degrees into the monstrous doctrine of transubstantiation.  For the true notion of the Eucharist lying cross to their darling schemes, they choose rather to deprave the Sacrament itself, than to stand corrected by it.  However, all this tends to confirm the main point, which I have been insisting upon, that the Sacraments, among other very valuable uses, have for many ages upwards been the standing barriers against corruptions: though there are no fences so strong, nor any ramparts so high, but daring and desultorious wits may either break through them or leap over them.

         *[N.B.  They might justly have said, that the sacred symbols are more than a mere image, more than mere signs and figures: but they should not have denied their being images at all.  And they might justly have said, that the sacred symbols are, in construction and beneficial effect, to worthy receivers, the very body and blood: but they ought not to have asserted what they did, in that absolute manner, or in such crude terms, left without the proper qualifying explanations.]

         XV.  I shall add but one example more; and it shall be of Faustus Socinus, of the sixteenth century: a person of pregnant wit and teeming invention; of moderate learning, but a very large share of sufficiency.  His great ambition was, to strike out a new system of religion from his own conceits; though he happened only to revive (and perhaps very ignorantly) the ancient Sabellianism, Photinianism, and Pelagianism, with other exploded heresies.  He began with subverting (as far as in him lay) the true and ancient doctrine of the Trinity, rejecting the Deity of the second Person, and even the being of the third.  After a thousand subtleties brought to elude plain Scripture, and after infinite pains taken in so unnatural a war against Heaven, he was yet sensible, that he should prevail nothing, unless, together with the doctrine of the Trinity, he could discard the two Sacraments also, or render them contemptible.  Baptism was a standing monument of the personality and equal Divinity of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: and the other Sacrament was an abiding memorial of the merits (though no creature can merit) of our Lord’s obedience and sufferings: and both together were lasting attestations, all the way down from the very infancy of the Church, of the secret workings, the heavenly graces and influences of the Holy Spirit upon the faithful receivers.  Therefore to let the Sacraments stand, as aforetime, was leaving the ancient faith to grow up again in the Christian world, much faster than Socinus, with all his subtle explications of Scripture texts, could bear it down.  Being well aware how this matter was, he fell next upon the Sacraments; discarding one of them, in a manner, under pretense that it was needless; and castrating the other, with respect to what was most valuable in it, to render it despicable.  It was thought somewhat odd, by some of his own friends, [Vid. Ruari Epistolae, vol. ii. p. 251.] that he should labour to throw off Baptism, and at the same time retain the Eucharist, which appeared to be comparatively of slighter moment, and less insisted upon in Scripture. But he well knew what he did; for the form of Baptism stood most directly in his way.  As to the Eucharist, if he could but reduce it to a bare commemoration of an absent friend, there would be nothing left in it to create him much trouble; but it might look sincere and ingenuous, in that instance at least, to abide by the letter of the text, and to plead for the perpetuity of an ancient and venerable (now by him made a nominal) Sacrament.  This appears to be the most natural account of his conduct in the whole affair.  For otherwise it is a very plain case, that a lively imagination like his might have invented as fair or fairer pretexts for laying aside the Eucharist, [Indeed, the same pretenses, some of them, equally affect both Sacraments, and tend to the discarding of both, or neither; as Vossius justly remarks, De Baptismo.] than for discarding Baptism; and it might have been easier to elude some few places of Scripture than many.  But I return.

         From the induction of particulars here drawn together, and laid before you, may be understood, by the way, the true and right notion of the Christian Eucharist, such as obtained from the beginning, and continued till the dark ages came on, and longer: but the point which I aimed at was, to illustrate the use of both the Sacraments considered as fences or barriers, ordained by Christ, to secure the true faith, and to preclude false doctrines.  Few have ever attempted to corrupt Christianity in any of its considerable branches, but, first or last, they have found themselves embarrassed by one or both Sacraments; and have been thereby obliged either to desist presently, or to expose themselves further, by quarrelling with those sacred institutions, which all wise and good men have ever most highly revered.

         I have taken notice, how the most essential articles of the Christian religion have, in their several turns (as they happened to be attacked), been supported and strengthened by these auxiliary means.  The doctrine of the visible creation by God most high: the doctrine of our redemption by Christ, both God and man: the doctrine of sanctifying grace by the Holy Spirit of God, a real Person, and also Divine: the doctrines of original sin, and of our Lord’s meritorious sacrifice, and of a future resurrection of the body: these, and as many others as are contained in these, have all been eminently preserved and held up by the Christian Sacraments.  The Sacraments therefore are full of excellent instruction and admonition: they carry creeds and commandments, as it were, in the bowels of them: they speak even to the eyes in silent imagery, and often teach more in dumb show, with less expense of time and much greater efficacy, than any the most eloquent discourses could do.  The Romanists have sometimes boasted, that images are the laymen’s books, wherein the unlearned may read what it concerns them to know, without knowing letters.  And indeed, if images had been authorized, or had they not been prohibited books, they might have been admitted with a better grace. But our Sacraments are the true books (or serving as books), both to learned and unlearned; full of lively imagery and instructive emblem; drawn by Christ himself, and left as his legacies, for the use of all the churches.

         Let us then, my Reverend Brethren, be careful to preserve these sacred deposits with all due reverence and watchfulness; inasmuch as they contain treasures of infinite value; and Christianity itself appears to be so entirely wrapped up in them, that, humanly speaking, it must unavoidably stand or fall with them.

 

The Christian Sacrifice Explained In A Charge

Delivered In Part To The Middlesex Clergy At

St. Clement-Danes, April 20, 1738

To Which Is Added An Appendix

Reverend Brethren,

         The Sacrament of the Eucharist has for some time been the subject of debate amongst us, and appears to be so still, in some measure; particularly with regard to the sacrificial part of it.  As it is a federal rite between God and man, so it must be supposed to carry in it something that God gives to us, and something also that we give, or present, to God.  These are, as it were, the two integral parts of that holy ceremony: the former may properly be called the sacramental part, and the latter, the sacrificial.  Any great mistake concerning either may be of very ill consequence to the main thing: for if we either mistake the nature of God’s engagements towards us, or the nature of our engagements towards God, in that sacred solemnity, we so far defeat the great ends and uses of it, and prejudice ourselves in so doing.

         A question was unhappily raised amongst us, about an hundred years ago, whether the material elements of the Eucharist were properly the Christian sacrifice.  From thence arose some debate; which however lasted not long, nor spread very far.  But at the beginning of this present century, the same question was again brought up, and the debate revived, with some warmth; and it is not altogether extinct even at this day.

         Those who shall look narrowly into the heart of that dispute may see reason to judge, that a great part of it was owing to some confusion of ideas, or ambiguity of terms; more particularly, from the want of settling the definitions of sacrifice by certain rules, such as might satisfy reasonable men on both sides.

         How that confusion at first arose may perhaps be learned by looking back as far as to Bellarmine, about 1590, or however as far as to the Council of Trent, about thirty years higher.  Before that time things were much clearer, so far as concerned this article.  Nobody almost doubted but that the old definitions of sacrifice were right, and that spiritual sacrifice was true and proper sacrifice, yea the most proper of any.

         “Spiritual sacrifice” is St. Peter’s phrase [1 Pet. 2:5.]: and it agrees with St. Paul’s phrase of “reasonable service” [Rom. 12:1.] and both of them fall in with our Lord’s own phrase, of “worshipping God in spirit and in truth”. [John 4:23.  See Dodwell on Instrumental Music, p. 31.  Stillingfieet, Serm. xxxix. p. 602.  Scot, vol. iv. Serm. iv.]  It is serving God “in newness of spirit, not in the oldness of the letter.” [Rom. 7:6.]  It is offering him true sacrifice and direct homage, as opposed to legal and typical, in order to come at true and direct expiation, without the previous covers or shadows of legal and typical expiations, which reached only to the purifying of the flesh, not to the purging of the conscience. [Heb. 9:9, 13–14.]  This kind of sacrifice called spiritual does not mean mental service only, but takes in mental, vocal, and manual, the service of the heart, mouth, and hand; all true and direct service, bodily [Rom. 12:1.  1 Cor. 6:20.] service as well as any other, since we ought to serve God with our bodies as well as our souls.  Such is the nature and quality of what Scripture and the ancients call spiritual sacrifice, as opposed to the outward letter.  Such services have obtained the name of sacrifice ever since David’s time, [They are emphatically styled sacrifices of God (Psalm 51:17), as being the fittest presents or gifts to him, the most acceptable offerings.] warranted by God himself, under the Old Testament and New.  The Jews, before Christ and since, [Vid.Vitringa de vet. Synag. in Proleg. pp. 40, 41.  Philo passim. Justin. Mart. Dial. p. 387.] have frequently used the name of sacrifice in the same spiritual sense.  The very Pagans were proud to borrow the same way of speaking* from Jews and Christians: so that custom of language has not run altogether on the side of material sacrifice.  It may rather be said, that the custom of Christian language, not only in the New Testament, but also in the Church writers, has run on the side of spiritual sacrifice, without giving the least hint that it was not true sacrifice, or not sacrifice properly so called.

         *[Porphyrius de Abstin. lib. ii. sect. 34.  Cp. Euseb. Praep. Evangel. lib. iv. cap. 9–14. xiii. cap. 13.  Clem. Alex. Strom. v. p. 686. ed. Ox.  Even Plato, long before Christianity, had defined sacrifice to mean a present to the Divine Majesty; not confining it, so far as appears, to material, but leaving it at large, so as to comprehend either material or spiritual.  See my Review, etc. above.]

         St. Austin’s definition of true and Christian sacrifice* is well known, and need not here be repeated.  He spoke the sense of the churches before him: and the Schools, after him, followed him in the same.  Aquinas, at the head of the Schoolmen, may here speak for the rest: he determines, that a sacrifice, properly, is anything performed for God’s sole and due honour, in order to appease him.**  He plainly makes it a work, or service, not a material thing: and by that very rule he determined, that the sacrifice of the cross was a true sacrifice; which expression implies both proper and acceptable.  This notion of sacrifice prevailed in that century, and in the centuries following, and was admitted by the early Reformers [Vid. Melancthon. de Missa, p. 195.  In Malachi, p. 545. tom. ii.  Chemnit. Examen. part. ii. p. 137.]; and even by Romanists also, as low as the year 1556, or yet lower.  Alphonsus a Castro, of that time, a zealous Romanist, in a famous book (which between 1534 and 1556 had gone through ten or more editions) declared his full agreement with Calvin, so far as concerned the definition of true sacrifice, conformable to St. Austin’s.***  Even Bellarmine acknowledged, above thirty years after, that some noted Doctor of the Roman Church still adhered to the same definition [Bellarmin. de Missa, lib. i. cap. 2. p. 710.].  So that spiritual sacrifice was not yet entirely excluded as improper, metaphorical, and nominal, among the Romanists themselves; neither was it hitherto a ruled point amongst them, that material thing was essential to the nature, notion, or definition of true and proper sacrifice.  How that came about afterwards, we shall see presently.

         *[Verum sacrificium est omne opus quod agitur ut sancta societate inhaereamus Deo, relatum scilicet ad illum finem boni quo veraciter beati esse possimus. Augustin. de Civit. Dei, lib. x. cap. 6. p. 242. tom. 7. ed. Bened.  Compare my Review, above.]

         **[Dicendum, quod sacrificium proprie dicitur aliquid factum in honorem proprie Deo debitum ad eum placandum.  Et inde est quod Augustinus dicit, verum sacrificium est, etc.  Christus autem, ut ibidem subditur, seipsum obtulit in passione pro nobis.  Et hoc ipsum opus, quod voluntarie passionem sustinuit, Deo maxime acceptum fuit, utpote ex caritate maxime proveniens: unde manifestum est, quod passio Christi fuerit verum sacrificium.”  Aquin. Summ. par. iii. q. 48.]

         ***[After reciting Austin’s definition, he proceeds: “Haec Augustinus, ex quibus verbis aperte colligitur omne opus bonum quod Deo offertur, esse verum sacrificium, et hanc definitionem ipsemet Calvinus admittit ... ex cujus verbis constat, inter nos et illum de veri sacrificii definitione convenire.”  Alphons. a Castro, adv. Haeres. lib. x. p. 75. ed. 1565.]

         The Romanists, wanting arguments to support their mass sacrifice, thought of this pretense, among others, that either their mass must be the sacrifice of the Church, or the Church had really none: and so if the Protestants resolved to throw off the mass, they would be left without a sacrifice, without an altar, without a priesthood, and be no longer a Church. [Alphons. a Castro, lib. x. p. 74.  Cp. Bellarmin. de Missa, lib. i. cap. 20.]  The Protestants had two very just answers to make, which were much the same with what the primitive Christians had before made to the Pagans, when the like had been objected to them.  The first was, that Christ himself was the Church’s sacrifice,* considered in a passive sense, as commemorated, applied, and participated in the Eucharist.  The second was, that they had sacrifices besides, in the active sense, sacrifices of their own to offer, visibly, publicly, and by sacerdotal hands, in the Eucharist: which sacrifices were their prayers, and praises, and commemorations;** eucharistic sacrifices, properly, though propitiatory also in a qualified sense.  The Council of Trent, in 1562, endeavoured to obviate both those answers:*** and Bellarmine afterwards undertook formally to confute them.  The Romanists had no way left but to affirm stoutly, and to endeavour weakly to prove, that the two things which the Protestants insisted upon did neither singly, nor both together, amount to true and proper sacrifice.  Here began all the subtleties and thorny perplexities which have darkened the subject ever since; and which must, I conceive, be thrown off (together with the new and false definitions, which came in with them), if ever we hope to clear the subject effectually, and to set it upon its true and ancient basis.

         *[Vid. Clem. Alex. pp. 688, 836. ed. Ox.  Euseb. Demonstr. Evan. p. 38.  Augustin. tom. iv. p. 1462. ed. Bened. Greg. M. tom. ii. p. 472. ed. Bened. Cyril. Alex. contr. Jul. lib. ix.]

         **[Justin Martyr, pp. 14, 19, 387, 389. ed.  Thirlb. Clem. Alex. 686, 836, 848, 849, 850, 860. ed. Ox.  Origen. tom. ii. pp. 210, 311, 191, 205, 243, 363, 418, 563. ed. Bened.  Euseb. Dem. Evang. pp. 20, 21, 23.  Tertullian, pp. 69, 188, 330.  Rigalt. Cyprian. Ep. lxxvii. p. 159. ed. Bened.  Hilarius Pictav. pp. 154, 228, 535.  Basil. tom. iii. p. 52. ed. Bened.  Chrysost. tom. v. pp. 231, 316, 503. ed. Bened.  Hieronym. tom. ii. pp. 186, 250, 254. tom. iii. pp. 15, 1122, 1420. ed. Bened.  Augustin. tom. ii, p. 439. iv. pp. 14, 473, 455, 527, 498, 1026, 1113. vii. p. 240. ed. Bened. and compare my Review, chap. xii.]

         ***[Si quis dixerit in missa non offerri Deo verum et proprium sacrificium, aut quod offerri non sit aliud quam nobis Christum ad manducandum dari, anathema sit. ... Si quis dixerit missae sacrificium tantum esse laudis et gratiarum actionis, aut nudam commemorationem sacrificii in cruce peracti, non autem propitiatorium, anathema sit.”  Concil. Trid. sess. xxii. can. 1. 3.]

         I shall pass over Bellarmine’s trifling exceptions to the Protestant sacrifice (meaning the grand sacrifice) considered in the passive sense.  It is self-evident, that while we have Christ, we want neither sacrifice, altar, nor priest; for in him we have all: and if he is the head, and we the body, there is the Church.  Had we no active sacrifice at all, yet so long as we are empowered, by Divine commission, to convey the blessings [Blessing was a considerable part of the sacerdotal office in the Aaronical priesthood.  Numb. 6:23–27.  Deut. 10:8, 21:5.] of the great sacrifice to as many as are worthy, we therein exercise an honourable priesthood,* and may be said to magnify our office.  But waving that consideration at present, for the sake of brevity, I shall proceed to examine what Bellarmine has objected to our sacrifices considered in the active sense, and to inquire by what kind of logic he attempted to discard all spiritual sacrifices, under the notion of improper, metaphorical, nominal sacrifices, or, in short, no sacrifices.

         *[Some of the elder Romanists acknowledged this to be sufficient.  “Satis est, ut vere et proprie sit sacrificium, quod mors Christi ita, nunc ad peccati remissionem applicetur, ac si nunc ipse Christus moreretur.”  Canus, Loc. Theol. lib. xii. cap. 12.]

         1.  He pleads, that Scripture opposes good works to sacrifice; as particularly in Hosea 6:6, “I will have mercy, and not sacrifice”: therefore good works are not sacrifice properly so called. [Bellarmin. de Missa, lib. i. cap. 2. p. 710.]  But St. Austin long before had sufficiently obviated that pretense, by observing, that Scripture, in such instances, had only opposed one kind of sacrifice to another kind, symbolical to real, typical to true, shadow to substance.*  God rejected the sign, which had almost engrossed the name, and pointed out the thing signified; which more justly deserved to be called sacrifice.  So it was not opposing sacrifice to no sacrifice, but legal sacrifice to evangelical.  Such was St. Austin’s solution of the objected difficulty: and it appears to be very just and solid, sufficiently confirmed both by the Old Testament and New.

         *[“Per hoc ubi scriptum est, Misericordiain volo quam sacrificium, nihil aliud quam sacrificio sacrificium praelatum oportet intelligi: quoniam illud quod ab omnibus appellatur sacrificium signum est veri sacrificii.  Porro autem misericordia, est verum sacrificium.”  Augustin. de Civ. Dei, lib. x. cap. 5.  N.B.  In explication of what Austin says, “quod ab omnibus,” etc., it may be noted that he did not take the vulgar language for the best, or the only rule of propriety: he observes elsewhere (de Verb. Dom. Serm. liii.) that almost all call the Sacrament (that is, sign of the body) the body.  “Paene quidem sacramentum omnes corpus ejus dicunt.”  And yet he did not think that the sign was more properly the body, than the body itself, but quite otherwise.]

         2.  Bellarmine’s next pretense is, that in every sacrifice, properly so called, there must be some sensible thing offered; because St. Paul has intimated, that a priest must have somewhat to offer.  Heb. 8:3. [Bellarmin. de Missa, lib. i. cap. 2. p. 711.]  But St. Paul says “somewhat,” not “some sensible thing”.  And certainly, if a man offers prayers, lauds, good works, etc. he offers somewhat, yea and somewhat sensible too: for public prayers, especially, are open to the sense of hearing, and public performances to more senses than one.  Therefore the service may be the sacrifice, not the material things: and such service being evangelical (not legal or typical) is spiritual sacrifice.

         3.  The Cardinal has a third argument about elicit acts; which being highly metaphysical and fanciful, I choose rather to pass it off without farther answer, than to offend your ears with it.

         4.  A fourth pretense is that the sacrifice of the Church being but one, the spiritual sacrifices, which are many, cannot be that one sacrifice.  Here he quotes Austin, Pope Leo, and Chrysostom, to prove that the Church’s sacrifice is but one, and that one the Eucharist. [Ibid. p. 712.]  He might have spared the labour, because the same Fathers assert the sacrifice of the Eucharist to be both one and many, diversely considered: one complicated sacrifice, taking in the whole action; many sacrifices, if distinctly viewed under the several particulars.  And though the Eucharist might by common use come to be called emphatically, the Sacrifice, as being most observable, or most excellent, or as comprehending more sacrifices in one than any other service did, yet it does not from thence follow that the other less observable or less considerable sacrifices were not properly sacrifices.  For has not the same Eucharist, in vulgar speech, and by custom, come to be emphatically called, the Sacrament, as if there were no other Sacrament?  And yet certain it is, that Baptism is as properly a Sacrament as the other. Emphatic appellations therefore are rather marks of the excellency or notoriety of a thing, than of strict propriety of speech.  But I return to Bellarmine.

         5.  A fifth pretense is, that spiritual sacrifices, being common both to clergy and laity, require no proper priesthood, and therefore cannot be justly esteemed proper sacrifices; for proper sacrifice and proper priesthood, being relatives, must stand or fall together. [Bellarmin. de Missa, lib. i. cap. 2. p. 712.]  To which it may be answered that even lay Christians, considered as offering spiritual sacrifices, are so far priests, according to the doctrine of the New Testament, confirmed by Catholic antiquity. [See my Review, above.]  But waving that nicety (as some may call it), yet certainly when spiritual sacrifices are offered up by priests, divinely commissioned, and in the face of a Christian congregation, they are then as proper sacrifices as any other are, or can be: and this is sufficient to our purpose.  Let the Eucharist therefore, duly administered by sacerdotal officers, be admitted as a sacrifice properly so called, but of the spiritual kind, and we desire nothing further.  If a sacerdotal oblation of the people’s loaf and wine can be thought sufficient to convert them into proper sacrifices, though they had nothing at all of a sacrificial nature in them before such oblation; surely the like sacerdotal oblation may much more convert the people’s prayers, praises, and devout services (which previously had something of a sacrificial nature in them) into real and proper sacrifices, yea the most proper of any.*  Why then must our spiritual offerings be set aside as of no account in respect of proper sacrifice, only to take in other things of much lower account than they?  Why should we take in those meaner things at all, as sacrifices, into our pure offerings, which are much better without them, and can only be defiled by such an heterogeneous mixture of legal and evangelical?  Let the elements be signs (as they really are) of the sacrifice which we offer, as they are also signs of the sacrifice whereof we participate: that appears to be the end and use of them (and great use it is), and seems to be all the honour which God ever intended them.  To be plainer, we ourselves are the sacrifice offered by those [ ] symbols; and the victim of the cross is the sacrifice participated by the same symbols.  But I proceed.

         *[This matter is briefly and accurately expressed by our very learned and judicious Bp. Montague.  “In lege Christi sunt sacerdotes, non tantum illa laxa significatione, qua, quotquot Jesu Christi sumus _Ļ______, (Christiani nominati,) sumus etiam et dicimur sacerdotes, sea et illa magis stricta, qua qui populo acquisitionis praesunt __ ____ ____, ___ ___ ____, Dei sunt et populi _______. ... Habemus autem et altare, ad quod offerimus oblationes et sacrificia commemorationis, laudationis, orationis, nos, nostra, Deo, per sacerdotem.”  Montacut. Orig. tom. ii. p. 313.]

         **[The sacrifice of the cross, or Christ himself, may also be said to be offered in the Eucharist.  But then it means only offered to view, or offered to Divine consideration: that is, represented before God, angels, and men, and pleaded before God as what we claim to; not offered again in sacrifice.  See Field on the Church, pp. 204, 205, and my Review, above.]

         6.  It is further argued against spiritual sacrifices, that they require no proper altar, as all proper sacrifices do: therefore they are not proper sacrifices. [Bellarmin. de Missa, lib. i. cap. 2. pp. 712, 713.]  This argument is faulty, more ways than one.  For, 1. It can never be proved, that sacrifices, and altars are such inseparable relatives, that one may not subsist without the other.  An altar seems to be rather a circumstance of convenience, or decency, than essential to sacrifice.  It was accidental to the Jewish sacrifices, that they needed altars: and the reason was not because all sacrifices must have altars, but because sacrifices of such a kind could not be performed without them; otherwise, an altar appears no more necessary to a sacrifice, considered at large, than a case or a plate, a pix or a patin, is to a gift, or present.  2. Besides, how will it be made appear that the table on which our Lord consecrated the Eucharist, or the cross on which he suffered, was properly and previously an altar?  The Cardinal’s argument proves too much to prove anything: for it does not only strike at the spiritual sacrifices, but at the mass sacrifice too, and even at the sacrifice of the cross, which had no proper altar.*  But if it be said, that both the table and the cross were proper altars, as being the seats of proper sacrifices, then whatever is the seat of a spiritual sacrifice (which we now suppose to be proper) will, by parity of reason, be a spiritual altar also, and proper in its kind: so then, take the thing either way, the argument is frivolous, and concludes nothing.**  I have now run through the Cardinal’s subtleties on this head; excepting that some notice remains to be taken of his artful contrivance to elude St. Austin’s definition of sacrifice, and therewith all the old definitions which had obtained in the Church for fifteen hundred years before.

         *[Some make the cross itself the altar, which has been the current way of speaking from Origen of the third century.  Others say the Divine nature of our Lord was the altar, grounding it upon Heb. 9:14.  Others take in both, in different respects: but neither of them seems to have been an altar in strict propriety of speech, but rather in the way of analogy, or resemblance.  This article has been minutely discussed by Cloppenburg. Opp. vol. i. p. 82, etc.  Witsius, Miscellan. tom. i. p. 509.  In Symb. Apostol. p. 146.  Vitringa, Obs. Sacr. lib. ii. cap. 13. lib. iv. cap. 15.  Deylingius, Obs. Sacr. tom. ii. p. 393.  Miscellan. 559, 567.]

         **[The Lord’s table is by the ancients frequently called an altar, as being the seat of the elements, and so an altar in the same metonymical meaning, as the elements were body and blood, or the grand sacrifice itself.  The Lord’s table might also more properly be called an altar, as being that from which, or at which, prayers and praises and commemorations (spiritual sacrifices) were offered.  See my Review, above.]

         7.  He pretends, that that Father defined only true sacrifice, not proper sacrifice; and that therefore his definition comes not up to the point in hand: good works may be true sacrifices, in St. Austin’s sense, but they will be improper, metaphorical, or nominal only, notwithstanding. [Bellarmin. de Alissa, lib. i. cap. 2. p. 713.  Cp. Vasquez, tom. iii. p. 507.  Suarez, tom. iii. p. 886.  Bapt. Scortia, p. 18.]  This is the substance of the pretext, laid down in its full force, and it will require a clear and distinct answer.  First, I may take notice, that it is very odd, in this case especially, to make a distinction between true and proper, and to oppose one to the other.  St. Austin, most undoubtedly, intended, under the word “true,” to take in all Christian, all evangelical, all salutary or acceptable, yea all allowable sacrifices: and what can it signify to talk of any proper sacrifice (Jewish, suppose, or Pagan) as opposed to true, so long as such proper sacrifice is no sacrifice at all in Christian account, but a sacrilege rather, or a profanation?  But I answer further that there is no reason to imagine that St. Austin did not intend to include “proper” under the word “true”.  It would not have been sufficient to his purpose to have said proper sacrifice, because Jewish and Pagan sacrifices might come under the same appellation: but he chose the word “true,” as carrying in it more than “proper,” and as expressing proper and salutary, or authorized, both in one.  As true religion implies both proper and authorized religion, and as true worship implies the like; so true sacrifice implies both propriety as to the name, and truth as to the thing. [In this sense St. Austin called our Lord’s Sacrifice true.  Contr. Faust. lib. xx. cap. 18. xxii. 17.  Contr. advers. Leg. etc. lib. i. cap. 18.]

         The point may be further argued from hence, that the ancient Fathers did not only call spiritual sacrifices real and true,* but they looked upon them as the best, the noblest, the most perfect sacrifices, the most suitable and proper gifts or presents that could be offered to the Divine Majesty:** and they never dropped any hints of their being either improper or metaphorical.  The Romanists knew this very well; and it may be useful to observe their exquisite subtlety in this argument.  For after they have exploded, with a kind of popular clamour, all that the Fathers ever called true sacrifice, under the opprobrious name of improper and metaphorical, [Vide Suarez, tom. iii. pp. 886, 891, 892, 893, 896.] and have raised an odium against Protestants for admitting no other, then (as if they had forgot all that they had been before doing), they fetch a round, and come upon us with the high and emphatic expressions of the Fathers, asking, how we can be so dull as to understand them of metaphorical, nominal sacrifices? [Vide Petavius, Eccl. Dogm. tom. iii. p. 130.]  Yet we are very certain, that all those high expressions of the Fathers belonged only to spiritual sacrifices; the very same that Bellarmine and the rest discard as improper and metaphorical.

         *[Justin. Dial. p. 389. ed. Thirlb.  Irenaeus, lib. iv. cap. 17. p. 248. ed. Bened.  Origen. tom. ii. p. 362. ed. Bened.  Clem. Alex. p. 686. ed. Ox.  Lactant. Epit. 169, 204, 205. ed. Dav.  Philastrius, Haer. cap. cix. p. 221. ed. Fabr.  Hieronym. in Amos, cap. v. p. 1420. ed. Bened.  Augustin. tom. x. pp. 94, 242, 243, 256. ed. Bened.  Gregor. Magn. Dial. lib. iv. cap. 59. p. 472. ed. Bened.]

         **[Justin. Dial. p. 387.  Athenagoras, pp. 48, 49. ed. Ox.  Clem. Alex. pp. 836, 848, 849, 860.  Tertullian, Apol. cap. xxx.  De Orat. cap. 27, 28.  Minuc. Felix, sect. xxxii. p. 183.  Cyprian, Ep. lxxvii. p. 159. ed. Bened.  Lactantius, Epit. cap. lviii. de vero Cultu, lib. vi. cap. 24, 25.  Eusebius, Demonstr. p. 40.  Hilarius Pictav. p. 154. ed. Bened.  Basil, tom. iii. p. 207. ed. Bened.  Nazianzen. tom. i. pp. 38, 484.  Chrysostom. tom. v. pp. 20, 231, 316, 503. vii. 216. ed. Bened.  Augustin. tom. v. p. 268. de Civit. Dei, lib. x. cap. 20. lib. xix. cap. 23.  Isidorus Pelus. lib. iii. Ep. 75.]

         But they here play fast and loose with us: first, pretending that the true and noble sacrifices of the ancients did not mean proper ones, in order to discard the old definitions; and then again (to serve another turn), pretending that those very sacrifices must have been proper (not metaphorical), because the Fathers so highly esteemed them, and spake so honourably of them.  In short, the whole artifice terminates in this, that the self-same sacrifices as admitted by Protestants shall be called metaphorical, in order to disgrace the Protestant cause, but shall be called proper and true as admitted by the Fathers, in order to keep up some show of agreement in this article with antiquity.  But I return to the Cardinal, whom I left disabling all the old definitions, in order to introduce a new one of his own, a very strange one;* fitted indeed to throw out spiritual sacrifice most effectually (which was what he chiefly aimed at), but at the same time also overthrowing, undesignedly, both the sacrifice of the mass and the sacrifice of the cross.

         *[A definition of one kind of sacrifice (Jewish, as it seems), rather than of sacrifice in general, or of Christian in particular.  It is giving us a species for the genus, like the making a definition of man, and then calling it a definition of animal.]

         1.  As to the sacrifice of the mass, the subject of it is supposed to be our Lord’s natural body, invisible in the Eucharist; and yet, by the definition, the sacrifice should be “res sensibilis,”* something visible, obvious to one or more of the senses.  Again, our Lord’s body is not liable any more to destruction; and yet, by the definition, the sacrifice should be destroyed.  But I shall insist no longer upon the Cardinal’s inconsistencies in that article, because he has often been called to account for them by learned Protestants.**

         *[“Sacrificium est oblatio externa, facta soli Deo, qua ad agnitionem humanae infirmitatis, et professionem Divinae majestatis, a legitimo ministro res aliqua sensibilis et permanens, in ritu mystico, consecrator, et transmutatur, ita ut plane destruatur. Bellarmin. de Missa, lib. i. cap. 2. pp. 715, 717.]

         **[Joann. Forbesius, p. 615.  Montacutius, Orig. tom. ii. pp. 302, 357.  Bishop Morton, b. vi. cap. 6. pp. 467, 468, etc.  Hakewill, p. 8.  Brevint. Depth and Mystery, etc. pp. 133, 144.  Payne on the Sacrifice of the Mass, p. 70.  Bishop Kidder, pp. 316, 415.]

         2.  The second article, relating to the sacrifice of the cross, has been less taken notice of: but it is certain, that Bellarmine’s definition is no more friendly to that than to the other.

         If our Lord’s soul was any part of his offering (as Scripture seems to intimate, [Isa. 53:10–12.  Psalm 16:10.  Luke 23:46.] and as the Fathers plainly teach, [Clem. Roman. cap. xlix.  Irenaeus, p. 292. ed. Bened.  Hieronym. tom. ii. part. 2. pp. 167, 173. ed. Bened.  Fulgentius ad Thrasimund. lib. iii.  Compare Bishop Bilson, Full Redemption, etc. p. 83, etc.] and the reason of the thing persuades), or if his life was an offering, which Scripture plainly, and more than once testifies [Matt. 20:28.  Mark 10:45.  John 10:15, 17; 15:13.  1 John 3:16.]; then “res aliqua sensibilis,” “some sensible thing’ is not the true notion of proper sacrifice, neither is it essential to the definition of it; unless the life which our Lord gave upon the cross was no proper sacrifice.  Perhaps, in strictness of notion, his “obedience unto death,” [Phil. 2:8.  Heb. 5:8.] his amazing act of philanthropy (so highly extolled in the New Testament), was properly the acceptable sacrifice.  So Aquinas states that matter, as I before noted: and Bellarmine was aware of it, in another chapter, wherein he undertakes to prove, that our Lord’s death was a proper sacrifice. [Bellarmin. de Missa, lib. i. cap. 3. p. 718.]  There he was obliged to say, though he says it coldly, that acts of charity are “quoddam sacrificium,” a kind of sacrifice.  But the question was about proper sacrifice, and about our Lord’s philanthropy: was that only “quoddam sacrificium,” or was it not proper?  Here the Cardinal was nonplussed, and had no way to extricate himself, but by admitting (faintly however and tacitly, as conscious of self-contradiction) that spiritual sacrifice may be proper sacrifice, and is not always metaphorical: otherwise, the very brightest part of our Lord’s own sacrifice, the very flower and perfection of it, his most stupendous work of philanthropy, must have been thrown off, under the low and disparaging names of metaphorical, improper, nominal sacrifice.

         Having seen how the ablest champion of the Romish cause failed in his attempts against spiritual sacrifices, failed in not proving his point, failed also in over proving, we may now with the greater assurance maintain, that the old definitions, which took in spiritual sacrifice, were true and just, and that the new ones, arbitrarily introduced, in the decline of the sixteenth century, are false and wrong; such as one would expect from men zealous for a party cause, and disposed to support manifest errors and absurdities, at any rate whatsoever.

         After pointing out the rise of the new definitions, I am next to observe what their progress was, and what the result or issue of them.  It must, I am afraid, be owned, that our Romish adversaries were but too successful in spreading mists and darkness all over the subject, in opening a new and wide field of dispute, thereby drawing the Protestants, more or less, out of their safe entrenchments; dividing them also, if not as to their main sentiments, yet at least as to their modes of expression and their methods of defense.

         How this affair had been fixed amongst us, but a few years before, may be collected from Archbishop Sandys’s judicious definition of sacrifice, [“Sacrificing is a voluntary action whereby we worship God, offering him somewhat, in token that we acknowledge him to be the Lord, and ourselves his servants.”  Sandys, Senn. xxi. p. 185.] published in 1585, and contrived to take in sacrifices both of the material and spiritual kind.  Dr. Bilson also (afterwards Bishop) published his book of Christian Subjection, the same year; wherein he took occasion to assert, that the Eucharist is a sacrifice, yea, and a true sacrifice; but understanding it to be of the spiritual kind.*  This kind of language (the uniform language of antiquity, and of the whole reformation** for sixty or seventy years) began to vary in some measure, from Bellarmine’s time, and more and more so, both here and abroad.  Some indeed stood by the old definitions and ancient language concerning the Eucharist: more went off from it; and so Protestants became divided, in sounds at least, while they differed not much in sense.  Many finding that they were sufficiently able to maintain their ground against the Romanists, even upon the foot of the Romish definitions, never troubled themselves further to examine how just they were: it was enough, they thought, that the Romanists could not prove the Eucharist a true and proper Sacrifice, in their own way of defining; and the rest seemed to be only contending about words and names. Nevertheless the more thoughtful and considerate men saw what advantage the adversaries might make by aspersing the Protestants as having no sacrifice properly so called, nor pretending to any: besides that the dignity of a venerable Sacrament would probably suffer much by it; and the ancient Fathers, who were very wise men, had never consented (though as much provoked to it by the Pagan objectors) to lessen the dignity of their true and real sacrifices by the low and diminutive names of improper or metaphorical.  They always stood to it, that they had sacrifices, yea and true sacrifices (of the spiritual*** kind) the noblest and divinest that could be offered; while all other pretended sacrifices, all material sacrifices,**** were mean, poor, contemptible things, in comparison.  Such, I humbly conceive, ought to have been our constant, standing reply to the Romanists, with respect to this article: for we have certainly as just a plea for it in our case, as the ancient Fathers had in theirs.  However, as I before hinted, Protestant Divines varied in their language on this head, some abiding by the old definitions, upon good consideration, others too unwarily departing from them.  So now we are to consider them as divided into two sorts: and in process of time, as shall be related, sprang up a third sort, growing, as it were, out of the other two.  I shall say something of each in their order and place, for the further clearing of the subject.

         *[“Malachi speaketh of the true sacrifice, which, from the beginning, and so to the end, was and shall be more acceptable to God, than the bloody and external sacrifices of the Jews.”  Bilson, p. 696.  “Neither they nor I ever denied the Eucharist to be a sacrifice.  The very name enforceth it to be the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; which is the true and lively sacrifice of the New Testament.  The Lord’s table, in respect of his graces and mercies there proposed to us, is an heavenly banquet, which we must eat, and not sacrifice: but the duties which he requireth at our hands, when we approach his table, are sacrifices, not sacraments.  As namely, to offer him thanks and praises, faith and obedience, yea our bodies and souls, to be living, holy, and acceptable sacrifices unto him, which is our reasonable service.”  Bilson, p. 699.]

         **[Beza’s account (in 1577) may serve for a specimen: “Coena Domini sacrificii rationem habet, idque triplici respectu.  1. Quatenus in ea aliquid Deo offerimus, solennem videlicet gratiarum actionem, ex illo Christi praecepto.  1 Cor. 11:26.  2. Deinde, quod in ea conferrentur eleemosynae, ex instituto fortassis Apostoli, 1 Cor. 16:2.  Quae eleemosynae vocantur Ļ________, ex illo Christi sermone, Matt. 25:20.  3. Quod mortis Domini sacrificium, ob oculos quodammodo in illis mysteriis positum, veluti renovetur.”  Beza, Quaest. et Respons. p. 105.]

         ***[See the testimonies in my Review, above, Chap. XII.  To which abundance more may be added.  And note, that though the epithet “spiritual,” joined, suppose, with “meat,” or “drink,” or the like, may denote some material thing bearing a mystical signification, yet it has not been shewn, neither can it be shewn, that the phrase “spiritual sacrifice” anciently denoted a material substance offered as a sacrifice.  A sacred regard was had to St. Peter’s use of that phrase, to denote evangelical services: besides that the Fathers constantly explained what they meant by spiritual sacrifices, and so specified the particulars, as to leave no room for scruple or evasion, among persons of any reasonable discernment.  So that the putting a new construction upon the phrase, in order to make some show of agreement with antiquity, is a transparent fallacy.  It is keeping their terms, but eluding their meaning.  It is teaching novel doctrine under ancient phrases.]

         ****[Express testimonies against material sacrifice may be seen in Justin Martyr, Apol. p. 14.  Tertullian, p. 188.  Rigalt.  Origen. in Psalm. pp. 563, 722. ed. Bened.  Lactantius, Epit. cap. lviii. p. 169.  Eusebius, Praep. Evang. lib. iv. cap. 10. pp. 148, 149.  Eusebius, Demonstr. Evang. pp. 39, 222, 223.  Basil. tom. ii. pp. 402, 403. ed. Bened.  Chrysostom, tom. i. p. 664. ed. Bened.  Cyrill. Alex. contr. Jul. lib. x. p. 345.  Procopius in Isa. pp. 22, 493.  N.B.  It is not possible to reconcile those testimonies to the material scheme: but it is very easy to make the Fathers consistent throughout, with themselves, and with each other, on the spiritual foot, as making the work, or service, the sacrifice.  The single question then is whether the Fathers ought to be so interpreted as to make them consistent upon the whole; or whether some detached passages, capable of a consistent meaning, ought to be understood in a sense repugnant to the uniform tenor of their writings.  The passive sense is the true key to those passages.]

         1.  Among those that adhered to the old language, and still continued to call the Eucharist a true or a proper sacrifice, but of the spiritual kind, I may first mention, Amandus Polanus,* a learned Calvinist, who died in 1610.  Our very judicious Dean Field (who finished his book of the Church in 1610, and died in 1616), he also adhered to the old language, disregarding the new definitions.  He asserted the Eucharist to be, with regard to the sacrifices of our selves, our praises, etc. a true but spiritual sacrifice. [Field, of the Church, pp. 210, 220.]

         *[Coena Domini est sacrificium, tum eucharisticum, tum propitiatorium: eucharisticum guidem proprium, quatenus in ejus usu gratias Deo agimus quod nos ex servitute, etc. ... propitiatorium vero aliquo modo, quatenus unici illius sacrificii vere propitiatorii memoriam in eo serio frequentare jubemur.”  Amami. Polan. Symphon. Cathol. cap. xvii. p. 275.  Cp. p. 855.]

         Scharpius, a learned Calvinist, who published his Cursus Theologicus in 1617, scrupled not to reckon the Eucharist among the sacrifices strictly and properly so called, but still of the eucharistic and spiritual kind.  He had seen Bellarmine’s affected subtleties on that head, despised them, and in part confuted them. [Scharpius, Curs. Theolog. pp. 1522, 1525,1539. ed. 2. Genevae.]

         Bishop Andrews appears to have been a Divine of the same ancient stamp, in this article.  In the year 1592, he discovered some uneasiness, that many would not allow the Eucharist to be a sacrifice at all, but a mere sacrament. [Bp. Andrews’s Sermons, part ii. p. 35.]  Afterwards in 1610, he asserted the Lord’s Supper to be a sacrifice of the eucharistic kind. [Andrews ad Bellarmin. Apolog. Respons. p. 184.]  In 1612, he went so far as to say that the Apostle (1 Cor. 10.) matcheth the Eucharist with the sacrifice of the Jews, and that, by the “rule of comparisons, they must be ejusdem generis.” [Bp. Andrews’s Sermons, p. 453.  Cp. his Posthumous Answer to Card. Perron, pp. 6, 7.]  By which he did not mean, as some have widely mistaken him, that both must be the same kind of sacrifice, but that both must be of the sacrificial kind, agreeing in the same common genus of sacrifice: for he said it in opposition to those who pretended that the Eucharist was an ordinance merely of the sacramental kind, and not at all of the sacrificial.*

         *[Besides the argument here drawn from the consideration of what principles he was then opposing (which is a good rule of construction), it may further be considered that the approved Divines of his time, Mason and Spalatensis, rejected with indignation the thought of any material sacrifice (vid. Mason de Ministerio Anglican. pp. 575, 599, 618, 551, 595.  Spalatensis, lib. v. pp. 149, 265, 267.) condemned it as absurdity, madness, and impiety.  So also Bp. Morton, (b. vi. cap. 5. pp. 438, 439.) approving what the wiser Romanists had said, condemning the notion in the like strong terms.]

         Dr. Buckeridge wrote in 1614.  His notion of the eucharistic sacrifice seems to resolve itself into a real and proper sacrifice of Christ’s mystical body, the Church, and a metonymical, improper offering of Christ himself; offering him in some sort, or in the way of representation, like as is done in Baptism.*  He does not indeed use the word “proper,” following the style of the ancients before ever that word came in: but he apparently means it, where he speaks of the sacrifice of Christ’s mystical body, that is, of self-sacrifice.

         *[De sacrificio cordis contriti ... de sacrificiis item corporis Christi mystici (non naturalis) in quo nosmetipsos Deo offerimus, satis convenit. ... De sacrificio item commemorativo, sive repraesentativo, quo Christus ipse, qui in cruce pro nobis immolatus est, per viam repraesentationis et commemorationis a nobis etiam quodammodo offerri dicitur, lis non magna est: in Baptismo enim offertur sacrificium Christi, uti Augustinus, etc. Buckeridge de Potest. Papae in praefat.]

         Archbishop Laud speaks of three sacrifices: 1. Christ’s own sacrifice, commemorated before God, by the priest alone, in his breaking the bread, and pouring out the wine.  2. The sacrifice made by priest and people jointly, the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving.  3. Self-sacrifice by every communicant.*  I will not defend all those distinctions.  I think all the three sacrifices are properly the sacrifices of the Church, or of all the worthy communicants, recommended or offered up by their priests in that holy solemnity: the priest is their mouth in doing it, their conductor, or principal, authorized by God so to be.  This great man said nothing of proper or improper: all the three sacrifices may be understood to be proper, but spiritual.  What he believed, as to each, is not easy to say.  If we explain his commemorative sacrifice by Bishop Buckeridge’s account of the same thing, it could be no more than figurative, in that relative view; for we cannot properly sacrifice Christ himself: but the commemorative service, being of the same nature with hymns and praises, may be considered in the absolute view, as a proper sacrifice of ours, of the eucharistic and spiritual kind; and that perhaps was what that great Prelate might have in his thoughts.

         *[“In the Eucharist we offer up to God three sacrifices: One, by the priest only, that is, the commemorative sacrifice of Christ’s death, represented in bread broken and wine poured out: another, by the priest and people jointly; and that is the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving for all the benefits and graces we receive by the precious death of Christ: the third, by every particular man for himself only, and that is the sacrifice of every man’s body and soul, to serve him in both all the rest of his life, for this blessing thus bestowed upon him.”  Laud’s Conference, sect. xxxv. pp. 305, 306.]

         It is certain that Bishop Montague, of that time, understood the whole action, or memorial service, to be a true and real sacrifice of praise. [Montacut. Origin. tom. ii. pp. 301-304.  Compare his Anti-diatribe, pp. 143, 144, where he takes in our self-sacrifice, calling it the sacrifice of Christ’s mystical body.]  And as he was a great admirer of antiquity, he had no regard to the new definitions, but referred the novelists to St. Austin for correction and better instruction.[ Montacut. ibid. p. 358.]  The very learned Dr. Hammond was, undoubtedly, in the same way of thinking: the whole eucharistic action, both of priest and people, the memorial service jointly performed, that was the sacrifice in his account.*  Bishop Taylor, [Taylor, Holy Living, etc. ch. iv. sect. 10.  Worthy Commun. p. 54.] Archbishop Bramhall, [Bramhall’s Works, pp. 35, 36, 996.] Hamon l’Estrange, [L’Estrange’s Alliance, etc. pp. 187, 221.] appear to have been in the like sentiments.  Dr. Patrick, who wrote in 1659, more plainly followed the ancient way of thinking and speaking, such as had been in use before the new definitions came in.  Duties and services were his sacrifice, a spiritual sacrifice. [Patrick’s Mensa Mystica, pp. 16, 18, 19. ed. 4.]  He pleads that such services justly deserve the name [Ibid. p. 35.]; that even the Pagan Platonists (as well as Scripture and Fathers) had so used the name of Sacrifice; and that the appellation was very proper, [Ibid. pp. 35, 36.] taking in not only mental, or vocal praises, but manual also; that is, as he expresses it, the eucharistic actions. [Ibid. p. 36. ed. 4: compare p. 19.]  Upon these principles, he tells the Papists, that we are sacrificers as well as they** which was the right turn, copied from what the ancient Fathers had said in answer to the like charge of having no sacrifice, and as justly pleaded by Protestants now, as by Christians then, against their injurious accusers.

         *[Hammond, Practical Catechism, lib. vi. sect. 4. vol. i. p. 174.  Compare View of New Direct. p. 154. and vol. ii.  Dispatch. p. 164. vol. iii. p. 769.  The notion of the whole action being the sacrifice, was not new: it appears in the Fathers of old; and Mr. Perkins, who died in 1602, had taught the same.  Problem, p. 137, or English Works, vol. ii. p. 550.]

         **[Ibid. p. 37: compare pp. 38, 40.  N.B.  I have omitted Mr. Thorndike, because his notion plainly resolves into the passive sense, viz. into the grand sacrifice itself, as contained in the Eucharist, because represented, applied, and participated in it.  The Lutherans, generally, resolve it the same way, only differing as to the point of real or local presence.  Vide Brochmand, tom. iii. pp. 2072, 3052.]

         Bishop Lang, after the Restoration, (A.D. 1663,) a very learned Divine and of great acumen, scrupled not to call the whole eucharistic service true and proper sacrifice, proper without a metaphor, as being the fittest gift or present that could be offered to the Divine Majesty. [Bishop Lany’s Sermon on Heb. 13:15. pp. 16, 32.  Compare my Review, above.]  So little did he regard the frivolous distinctions of the Trent Council, or the new definitions invented to support them.

         Nine years after appeared Dr. Brevint.*  He was well read in the eucharistic sacrifice: no man understood it better; which may appear sufficiently from two tracts of his upon the subject, small ones both, but extremely fine.  He stood upon the ancient ground, looked upon evangelical duties as the true oblations and sacrifices, [Brevint, Depth and Myst. p. 16.] resolved the sacrifice of the Eucharist, actively considered, solely into them;** and he explained the practical uses of that doctrine in so clear, so lively, and so affecting a way, that one shall scarce meet with anything on the subject that can be justly thought to exceed it, or even to come up to it. [Brevint, Sacram. and Sacrif. sect. vi. vii. viii. pp. 74–134.]  So that could heartily join my wishes with a late learned writer, that that “excellent little book, entitled, The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice, might be reprinted, for the honour of God, and the benefit of the Church.” [Dr. Hickes’s Christian Priesthood, vol. i. Prefat. Disc. pp. 39, 40.]  It is worth the noting, how acutely Dr. Brevint distinguished between the sacramental sacrifice of Christ, and the real or actual sacrifice of ourselves.  We cannot properly sacrifice Christ: we can only do it in signs and figures, that is, improperly, or commemoratively: but we may properly offer up ourselves to God; and that is, in strict propriety of speech, our sacrifice, our spiritual sacrifice.  Dr. Brevint rejected, with disdain, any thought of a material sacrifice, a bread offering, or a wine offering; tartly ridiculing the pretenses commonly made for it.***  But I have dwelt long enough upon the Divines of the first class; who standing upon the old principles, and disregarding the new definitions, continued to call the Eucharist a true sacrifice, or a proper sacrifice (meaning eucharistic and spiritual), or forbore, at least, to call it improper, or metaphorical.

         *[In 1672 Dr. Brevint wrote the Depth and Mystery of the Roman Mass: reprinted 1673.  In 1673 he published the Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice.  He was made Dean of Lincoln in 1681, and died in 1695.]

         **[“Sincere Christians must have their hands full, at the receiving the holy Communion, with four distinct sorts of sacrifices.  1. The sacramental and commemorative sacrifice of Christ.  2. The real and actual sacrifice of themselves.  3. The freewill offering of their goods.  4. The peace offering of their praises.”     Brevint, Christian Sacrifice, 110, 111.]

         ***[“Now among these magnificent wonders of Christ’s law, bread and wine can be reputed but of little importance; which you may find as well or better among the oblations of Aaron, and thus far belonging better to his order; because he is often commanded to offer bread, which Priest Melchizedek is not.  Therefore, if offering bread and wine makes an order, Aaron will be more certainly a priest after the order of Melchizedek, than was either Melchizedek or Christ himself.”  Brevint, Depth and Mystery, p. 116.  See p. 117.]

         2.  I may now look back to other Divines, who used a different language in this article.

         At the head of them* stands the celebrated Mr. Hooker, who wrote in 1597, and who feared not to say that “sacrifice is now no part of the Church ministry,” and that we have, properly, now no sacrifice. [Hooker, Eccl. Polity, book v. ch. 78. sect. 2. Oxf. edit.]  I presume he meant by proper sacrifice, propitiatory, according to the sense of the Trent Council, or of the new definitions.  In such a sense as that, he might justly say, that sacrifice is no part of the Church ministry, or that the Christian Church has no sacrifice.  But I commend not the use of such new language, be the meaning ever so right: the Fathers never used it. [        ]

         *[Dr. Rainoldes, in 1584, had in the way of arguing ad hominem’ shewn, that the Fathers were no friends to the mass-sacrifice, considered as true and proper, inasmuch as they allowed only of spiritual sacrifices, which, in the Romish account, were not true or proper sacrifices. See Rainoldes against Harte, pp. 472, 535, 536, 539. That kind of arguing first led the way to such sort of language as Mr. Hooker made use of; but was not precisely the same with it, not running in the like absolute terms.]

         **[Once Clemens Alexandrinus, (Str. vii. p. 836.) and once Arnobius (lib. vii.) has said, that the Christians had no sacrifices; meaning such as the Pagans had boasted of: but that did not amount to saying, that the Church had no proper sacrifices, or properly no sacrifice.]

         Dr. Francis White, in the year 1617 (he was afterwards Bishop of Ely), observed, that the name of sacrifice doth not in a proper and univocal sense belong to the Eucharist, but in a large acceptation of the word, and in a figurative meaning; because it is a representation of the real sacrifice of Christ once offered upon the cross. [White, Orthodox Faith and Way, p. 339.]  He was so far right in making a representation of Christ’s sacrifice to be but figuratively that sacrifice: but he forgot, that the Eucharist contains many spiritual services, which are truly sacrifices in the Scripture language, and that even the memorial service, though it is but metonymically Christ’s sacrifice, is yet really our sacrifice, our spiritual sacrifice.  Front hence, however, may be seen how and by what degrees Protestant Divines came to leave off calling the Eucharist a sacrifice, or called it so with the epithet of “improper” or “figurative”.  It was chiefly owing to a partial conception of it: they considered it barely in its representative or relative view, and too hastily concluded, that since it was not the sacrifice represented (as the Romanists pretended it was), it was no sacrifice at all in propriety of speech.

         Spalatensis, of that time, made no scruple of saying, over and over, that the Eucharist is “not a true sacrifice”. [Antonius de Dominis, lib. v. c. 6. pp. 82, 265, 269, 271, 278.]  In a certain place, he expressed himself in such a manner as might be apt to surprise a man at the first reading: he says, that the name of true sacrifice was never given to the Eucharist, never thought on, before the very latest and the most corrupt ages.*  But be meant it, I suppose, according to that sense of true sacrifice, which the Trent Council and the Popish writers had lately affixed to the name.

         *[“Esse verum sacrificium, nunquam ad postrema corrupta saecula invenio, aut dictum, aut cogitatum, aut traditum, aut practicatum in Ecclesia.”  Antonius de Dominis, ibid. p. 281.]

         The Divinity chairs in both universities about that time concurred in denying the Eucharist to be a true, real, or proper sacrifice: which appears from Dr. Abbot* afterwards Bishop of Sarum; and from Dr. Davenant,** afterwards Bishop of the same see.  Both of them seemed to take their estimate of true and proper sacrifice from the new definitions; allowing them for argument sake, and joining issue with the Romanists upon their own terms.  The like may be said of Mr. Mason, who frequently allows, or declares, that the Eucharist is not a sacrifice properly so called. [Mason. de Minist. Anglic. pp. 549, 550, 551, 555, 627, 628.]  But Dr. Crakanthorp (about A.D. 1624) may serve for a good comment upon all the rest: for when he denied the Eucharist to be either a true sacrifice, or a sacrifice properly so called, he cautiously guarded what he had said, by restraining it to such a sense as the Trent Council and Romish divines had affixed to the phrases of true sacrifice, and sacrifice properly so called.***  That restriction, or salvo, was often forgot, and came, by degrees, to be more and more omitted; and so the most prevailing doctrine ran in absolute terms, that the Eucharist is no true sacrifice, or no proper sacrifice, or in short, no sacrifice.  Bishop Morton, being sensible how much it tended to disparage the holy Eucharist, and how contradictory it was to ancient language, to say that the Eucharist is not a true or not a proper sacrifice, endeavoured to help the matter by a distinction between truth of excellency and truth of propriety;**** allowing the Eucharist to be true sacrifice, as to excellency of nature, but not as to propriety of speech: as if the new definitions were a better rule of propriety, than all that had prevailed for fifteen hundred years before.  His distinction was a good one, in the main, but was not justly applied in this particular, where truth of excellency and truth of propriety are really coincident, and resolve both into one.  However, so the vogue ran, as I have before said, and so has it been transmitted, through many hands, down to this day.*****

         *[“The passion of Christ is the sacrifice which we offer: and because the passion of Christ is not now really acted, therefore the sacrifice which we offer is no true and real sacrifice.”  Abbot, Counterproof against Dr. Bishop, ch. xiv. p. 364.  N.B.  Here was the like partial conception of the thing as I before noted in Dr. White.]

         **[Nos asserimus, in missa nihil posse nominari aut ostendi quod sit sacrificabile, aut quod rationem et essentiam habeat realis, externi, et proprie dicti sacrificii: quamvis quae adhiberi in eadem solent preces, eleemosynae, gratiarum actiones, spiritualium sacrificiorum nomen sortiantur; quamvis etiam ipsa repraesentatio fracti corporis Christi et fusi sanguinis, figurate sacrificium a veteribus saepenumero vocetur. Davenant. Determinat. p. 13.]

         ***[Sacrificium missae non est vere sacrificium propitiatorium, ut concilium Tridentinum definit, vestrique docent; sed Eucharisticum tantummodo et commemorativum. ... Sed nec omnino verum et proprie dictum sacrificium in missa ullum est; non quale Tridentinum concilium definivit, et vestri uno ore profitentur. Crakanthorp. contr. Spalatens. c. lxxiv. p. 574.]

         ****[Morton’s Institut. of the Sacram. book vi. chap. 3. p. 415. chap. 7. sect. i. p. 470.  How much the old notion of sacrifice was now wearing out may be judged from Dr. George Hakewill, who wrote in 1641, and was otherwise a learned and judicious writer, particularly as to this very argument.  He says, “Commemoration being an action, cannot, in propriety of speech, be the thing sacrificed, which must of necessity be a substance,” etc.  Hakewill, Dissertat. p. 25.  He rejects Austin’s definition, p. 4.  And it is too plain from several places of his work, that the mists first raised by Bellarmine, and other Romish divines, hung before his eyes.]

         *****[The Lutheran way of speaking, in this matter, may be seen in Deylingius, Observat. Miscellan. p. 291, and in Zeltner. Breviar. Controvers. cum Eccl. Graec. pp. 231, 251.  The Calvinist way, in Dallaeus, de Cult. Religiosis. pp. 1122, 1126. L’Arroque, Hist. of the Eucharist, 275, etc. Basnage, Annal. tom. i. p. 373, all declare it, absolutely, no true sacrifice: which, though well meant, is too unguarded, and is different language from that of the Fathers of the Reformation.  One of our late Divines (a person of great learning) speaks thus: “We deny that there is any reason why the Eucharist should be called a true sacrifice, and properly so called, or ought to be so: for when we call anything a true sacrifice, we have regard to the formal reason of a sacrifice, and not to the final.”  Nichols’s Additional Notes, p. 51, printed A.D. 1710.  But what did he make the formal reason of a sacrifice?  Did he take it from the new definitions?  Where there is properly a gift to God, by way of worship, to honour, or to please him, there is the formal reason of a sacrifice.  Gratulatory sacrifice is as properly sacrifice, as the propitiatory, or expiatory: they are different species under the same genus.]

         3.  Such being the case, there is the less reason to wonder that a third set of Divines, in process of time, sprang up, as it were, out of the two former.  For some serious men, perceiving how much the ancient and modern language differed in this article, and that by means of the now prevailing definitions they were likely to lose their sacrifice; they thought of reconciling the eucharistic sacrifice with the new definitions, by making it a material sacrifice.  Our excellent Mr. Mede, in the year 1635, was chief in this scheme.  The aim was good, to retrieve the Christian sacrifice, which seemed to be almost sinking; but the measures were ill laid: for the only right way, as I conceive, of compassing what he intended, would have been to have restored the old definitions of sacrifice, and so to have set the Eucharist upon its true, and ancient, that is, spiritual foundation.  The endeavouring to fix it on a material foot, and to make the elements themselves a sacrifice, was no more than what had been attempted, about fourscore years before, by the Romanists,* and, after mature deliberation, had been justly exploded by the shrewder men,** as Jewish, or meaner than Jewish, and altogether repugnant to Christian principles.  Neither could Mr. Mede escape the censures of many of that time for what he was doing; as appears by a letter of Dr. Twisse, written in 1636, and since printed in Mede’s Works.***  Mr. Mede forbore however to print his Christian Sacrifice; though he published the appendage to it, concerning the altar, which might give least offence: the rest appeared not till ten years after his decease, in the year 1648.  There are many good things in it, for which reason it has generally been mentioned with respect by our best Divines: but in the point of a material sacrifice (a sacrifice of the elements), he had not many followers.  Dr. Heylin, who in 1636 and 1637 had some scheme or schemes of his own, [In his Coal from the Altar, and in his Antidotum.] seems to have taken into Mr. Mede’s in or before 1654, when he published his exposition of the Apostles’ Creed. [Heylin on the Creed, p. 240, etc.]

         *[Ruardus Tapper. contr. Luther. art. 18.  Gaspar. Casalius. De Sacrif. lib. i. c. 20.  Jansenius, Concord. Evang. p. 905.  Gordon. Huntlaeus, lib. ix. c. 3. n. 1.]

         **[Salmeron. tom. ix. tract. 29. p. 224.  Maldonate, de Sacr. tom. i. par. 3. p. 334.  Bellarmine, pp. 788, 792, 793.  Vasquez, tom. iii. p. 527.  Suarez, tom. iii. pp. 886, 905, 906, 910.  Gregor. de Valentia, tom. iv. p. 1274.  Baptista Scortia. de Missa, 34, 36, 38.  Arendius, pp. 187, 189.]

         ***[“I perceive, the main thing you reached after, was a certain mystery concerning a sacrifice; which the Papists have miserably transformed; but, in your sense, is nowadays become a mystery to all the Christian world.”  Twisse, Ep. 70.  Compare Mede’s Answer, Ep. 71.]

         There are two fundamental flaws in Mr. Mede’s system: 1. One in his endeavouring to fix the notion or definition of a Christian sacrifice by the rules of the Levitical; as if typical and true were the same thing.  2. The other, in not being able to make out the sacrifice he aimed at, by the very rules which himself had fixed for it.  He observed very justly that in the Levitical peace offerings, God had, as it were, his part, portion, or mess, assigned in the sacrifice, [Mede’s Christian Sacrifice, book ii. c. 7. pp. 370, 371.] or feast: (for God was considered in those feasts, not merely as Convivator, but as Conviva also; a necessary circumstance to complete the federal oblation and federal feast).  But when he came to make out the analogy between the Jewish and Christian feast, he could find no part or portion for God in the Eucharist; where we take all to ourselves.*  There the parallel failed; the rule would not answer: therefore the rule was wrong.  It would be trifling here to reply, that a Christian sacrifice is no Jewish one, and is therefore not to be measured by Jewish rules: for why then should a Christian sacrifice be made material by Jewish rules? or why is the definition of sacrifice measured by the same?  Either uniformly hold to the rule assigned, or else give it up as no rule; and then the Christian sacrifice may be a true and proper sacrifice (though spiritual only), being of a different kind from the Jewish ones.  If, indeed, the Eucharist could be proved to be a material sacrifice by any clear text of Old Testament or New, then there would remain no further room for dispute: but since the point is chiefly argued from its supposed analogy to other material sacrifices (Jewish or Pagan), and that analogy does not answer, but fails in the main thing belonging to all material sacrifices, and which alone should make them appear gifts to God; it is plain that the argument has an essential flaw in it, which no art can cure.

         *[Luther first took notice of the self-contradiction contained in the making the elements a proper sacrifice to God in the Eucharist.  “Totum ergo cur nos panem, et vinum totum comedimus et bibimus, nihil relinquentes Deo? ... Dum corpora nostra et laudes sacrificamus, nihil nobis, sed omnia Deo soli exhibemus, ut stet ratio sacrificii etiam spiritualis.  Totum nos voramus, et totum offerimus: hoc est tantum dicere; neque voramus si offerimus, neque offerimus si voramus: et ita dum utrumque facimus, neutrum facimus.  Quis audivit unquam talia?  Omnia sibi pugnantissime contradicunt, et invicem sese consumunt: aut necessario et infallibiliter concludunt Eucharistiam sacrificium esse non posse.  Diluant haec, rogo, Lovanienses et Parisienses. Luth. de abrogand. Missa privata, tom. ii. par. 2. fol. 255.  Several answers have been thought on, to elude this argument, by Romanists and others: but it is impossible to invent any that will bear.]

         One thing may be pertinently observed of Mr. Mede, that he confined the sacrifice to the ante-oblation.  His was a sacrifice of the unconsecrated bread and wine,* not of the consecrated; not of the body and blood.  He supposed no new sacrificing act in the post-oblation, but the representation only of Christ’s sacrifice, made by what had been sacrificed before.  So that some lath notions of the eucharistic sacrifice can claim but very little countenance from Mr. Mede.  What we call offering the elements for consecration (like as we offer the waters of Baptism), he called sacrificing; which was indeed calling it by a wrong name, and upon wrong principles: but, in other things, his notion of the Eucharist was much the same with the common one; and he went not those strange lengths, those unwarrantable excesses, which, I am sorry to say, some late schemes manifestly abound with.  But I proceed.

         *[“Thus was there, as it were, a mutual commerce between God and the people; the people giving unto God, and God again unto his people: the people giving a small thanksgiving, but receiving a great blessing; offering bread, but receiving the body; offering wine, but receiving the mystical blood of Christ Jesus.”  Mede’s Disc. li. p. 293.  Comp. Christian Sacrif. chap. viii.]

         The doctrine of a material sacrifice, first brought hither about 1635, barely subsisted till the Restoration, and afterwards slept, as it were, for thirty or forty years.  But in 1697, two queries being sent to a learned man, [Dr. Hickes, in Two Discourses, p. 51, etc. 61. printed 1732] in these terms, “Whether there ought to be a true and real sacrifice in the Church; and Whether there is any such thing in the Church of England” (both which might very safely have been answered in the affirmative, keeping to the terms wherein they were stated), that learned person chose to alter the terms, true and real, into material, and still answered in the affirmative: which was going too far.  Nevertheless, in his answer to the queries, he admitted of some spiritual sacrifices, as being true, and real, and proper sacrifices; which makes it the more surprising that he should think of any other sacrifice.  For since it is self-evident that truth of excellency goes along with the spiritual sacrifices, and since he himself had allowed truth of propriety to go along with the same, or with some of them at least; to what purpose could it be to seek out for another sacrifice, not more proper, but certainly less excellent, than what we had before?  It is an uncontestable maxim, that the value of a sacrifice can never rise higher than the value of the sacrificers;* and therefore if they sacrifice themselves, it is not possible that they should do more, because in the giving themselves, they give all that they have to give.  What dignity then, or value, could it add to an evangelical priesthood, or sacrifice, to present the Divine Majesty with a loaf of bread, or a chalice of wine? or what practical ends or uses could be served by it?  I shall only observe further, that the same learned writer, afterwards, took material thing into the very definition of sacrifice:** but upon the latest correction, he struck it out again, putting gift instead of it;*** thereby leaving room for spiritual sacrifice (which undoubtedly is a gift) to be as proper a sacrifice as any.  So that his first and his last thoughts upon the subject appear to have been conformable so far, in a critical point, upon which much depends.

         *[Vid. Peter Martyr. Loc. Commun. pp. 753, 895.  Field on the Church, p. 209.  Cornel. a Lapide, in Heb. 7:7, seems to allow this maxim, when he says, “In omni sacrificio sacerdos major est sua victima, quam offert.]

         **[Hickes’s Christian Priesthood, p. 74. ed. 2. A.D. 1707.  “A sacrifice is a material thing solemnly brought, or presented, and offered to any God, according to the rites of any religion,” etc.]

         ***[Hickes’s Christian Priesthood, vol. i. p. 159. A.D. 1711.  “A sacrifice is a gift brought, and solemnly offered by a priest, ordinary or extraordinary, according to the rites and observances of any religion, in, before, at, or upon any place, unto any God, to honour and worship him, and thereby to acknowledge him to be God and Lord.”]

         Another learned writer (a zealous materialist, if ever there was one laid it down for his groundwork, that nothing can properly be called a sacrifice except some material thing: but to save himself the trouble of proving it, he was pleased to aver, that it was given for granted. [Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, pt. i. p. 5. ed.1714, or p. 6. ed. 1724.]  It might reasonably be asked, when given, or by whom?  Not by the penmen of the Old or New Testament; not by the Christian Fathers, or Pagan Platonists, in their times: not by the Schoolmen down to the Reformation, nor by the Papists themselves, generally, before the Council of Trent: not by any considerable number of Protestants, till fifty years after, or more; never by the Divines of our Church, without contradiction and opposition from other Divines as wise and as learned as any we have had: not given for granted, even by Dr. Hickes, of the material side, in 1697;* no, nor in 1711, as hath been already hinted.  To be short then, that important point was rather taken than given for granted, by one writer who wanted a foundation to build a new system upon: and as the foundation itself was weak, the superstructure, of course, must fall, however curiously wrought, or aptly compacted, had it really been so.

         *[His words are: “Vocal sacrifices are commonly called spiritual. ... These are true, real sacrifices ... and therefore our Saviour is said to have offered them up, Heb. 5:7, and they are expressly called sacrifices, Heb. 13:15 and 1 Peter 2:5.”  Two Disc. p. 53.  “The sacrifice of praises and prayers unto God ... is a proper, but spiritual sacrifice.” p. 61.  N.B.  It appears to me, that Dr. Hickes’s original scheme of the Christian sacrifice (though he called it material) really meant no more than an oblation of the material elements for consecration (which certainly is no sacrifice), and a commemorative service performed by the material elements, and external, manual service, as opposed to mere mental or vocal: both which points might have been granted him, as not amounting to the sacrifice of any material substance, the point is question.]

         But it is time for me now, my Reverend Brethren, to relieve your patience, by drawing to a conclusion.  I have pointed out (so far as I have been able to judge, upon very serious and diligent inquiry) the original ground and source of all the confusion which has arisen in this argument.  The changing the old definitions for new ones has perplexed us: and now again, the changing the new ones for the old may set us right.  Return we but to the ancient ideas of spiritual sacrifice, and then all will be clear, just, and uniform.  We need not then be vainly searching for a sacrifice (as the Romanists have been before us) among texts that speak nothing of one, from Melchizedek in Genesis down to Hebrews the thirteenth.  Our proofs will be found to lie where the spiritual services lie, and where they are called sacrifices.  The Eucharist contains many of them, and must therefore be a proper sacrifice, in the strength of those texts, and cannot be otherwise.  Here the primitive Fathers rested that matter; and here may we rest it, as upon firm ground.  Let us not presume to offer the Almighty any dead sacrifice in the Eucharist; he does not offer us empty signs: but as he conveys to us the choicest of his blessings by those signs, so by the same signs (not sacrifices) ought we to convey our choicest gifts, the Gospel services, the true sacrifices, which he has commanded.  So will the federal league of amity be mutually kept up and perfected.  Our sacrifices will then be magnificent, and our priesthood glorious; our altar high and heavenly, and our Eucharist a constant lesson of good life; every way fitted to draw down from above those inestimable blessings which we so justly expect from it.  Let but the work or service be esteemed the sacrifice, rather than the material elements, and then there will be no pretense or colour left for absurdly supposing, that any sacrifice of ours can be expiatory, or more valuable than ourselves; or that our hopes of pardon, grace, and salvation can depend upon any sacrifice extrinsic, save only the all-sufficient sacrifice of Christ.  When once those foreign fictions, or fancies, of other extrinsic sin offerings or expiations are removed, there will be no error of asserting a proper eucharistic sacrifice; but many good practical uses will be served by it.

         Under the legal economy, bulls and goats, sheep and turtledoves, bread offerings and wine offerings were really sacrifices: they had legal expiations (shadows of true) annexed to them; to intimate, that true expiation then, and always, must depend solely on the true sacrifice of atonement, the sacrifice of the cross.  The shadows have since disappeared; and now it is our great Gospel privilege to have immediate access to the true sacrifice, and to the true expiations, without the intervention of any legal expiation or legal sacrifice.  To imagine any expiatory sacrifice now to stand between us and the great sacrifice, is to keep us still at a distance, when we are allowed to draw near: it is dishonouring the grace of the Gospel; and, in short, is a flat contradiction to both Testaments.  For the rule of both is, and the very nature of things shews that so it must be, that all true expiation must resolve solely, directly, and immediately, into the one true sacrifice of expiation, namely, the grand sacrifice.  If, indeed, we had now any legal or typical offences to expiate, then might bread and wine be to us an expiatory typical sacrifice, as before to the Jews; and that would be all.  If we look for anything higher, they have it not in them, neither by their own virtue, nor by any they can borrow: for it is no more possible that the blood of the grape, representing Christ’s blood, should purge the conscience, and take away sins now, than that the blood of bulls or of goats, representing the same blood of Christ, could do it aforetime.  The utmost that any material sacrifices, by virtue of the grand sacrifice, could ever do, was only to make some legal or temporal atonement: they cannot do so much now, because the legal economy is out of doors, and all things are become new.  In a word, our expiations now are either spiritual or none: and therefore such of course must our sacrifices also be, either spiritual or none at all.

 

The  Appendix.

         As I have hinted something above of the strange lengths which have been run, and of the unwarrantable excesses which some late systems of the eucharistic sacrifice manifestly abound with; it may reasonably be expected that I should here give some account of what I there intimated.  I must own, it is the most unwelcome part of my employ, and what I least wished to be concerned in.  It can never be any pleasure to a good mind to be exposing failings, even when there is a necessity for it; but it is rather an abatement of the solid satisfaction arising from the maintaining of the truth, that it cannot ordinarily be done without some kind of rebuke, open or tacit, upon every gainsayer.  When I first engaged in the subject of the Eucharist, I saw what necessity there was for throwing off the material hypothesis (being unscriptural, and uncatholic, and many ways unreasonable), lest it should hang like a millstone upon the neck of the main cause.  Nevertheless, I endeavoured to remove that weight with all imaginable tenderness towards persons, living or dead; designing only to rectify mistakes, in a manner the most respectful, so as not to betray the cause of truth.  What I could not approve of, in a late learned writer, I expressed my dislike of, where necessary, in the softest terms; scarce noting the deformities of his system in any explicit way, but wrapping them up in generals, and throwing the kindest shade over them.  But by what has appeared since, I find, that every degree of tenderness and every token of respect must be looked upon as nothing, unless I could have commended the same writer, as a person of sound judgment, [See Dr. Brett’s Remarks on Review, p. 97, and compare pp. 1, 121, 123, 156.] in the very things wherein he certainly judged amiss, and much to the prejudice of those important truths which I had undertaken to defend.  A very particular stress is laid upon that gentleman’s solid learning and judgment in this very question: he was, it seems, visibly superior in learning and argument to all opponents;* insomuch that a most eminent person, in 1716, had not the courage to contradict him, however disposed to it, in the article of the sacrifice.**  I have no inclination to detract from that gentleman’s talents: though the proper glory of a man lies not in the possession, but in the right use of them.  Admiration of persons has often been found a false guide in our searches after truth.  Very great men have frequently been observed to run into great excesses: and I doubt not but to make it appear that he did so in the article now before us.  Men must, at last, be tried by truth (which is above everything), and not truth by men, or by names. [See my Importance, etc. Works, vol. iii. p. 667.]  That I may observe some method, I shall point out the excesses which that learned writer appears to have run into, under the heads here following:–

         1.  In depreciating spiritual sacrifices beyond what was decent or just.

         2.  In overvaluing material sacrifices.

         3.  In overstraining many things relating to our Lord’s supposed sacrifice in the Eucharist.

         4.  In overturning or under mining the sacrifice of the cross.

         5.  In the wrong stating of our sacrifice in the Eucharist.

         6.  In giving erroneous accounts of the Evangelical or Christian priesthood.

These several heads may furnish out so many distinct chapters: I shall take them in the order as they lie, and shall proceed as far in them as necessity may seem to require, or my present leisure may permit; reserving the rest for any future occasion, according as circumstances may appear.

         *[“Mr. Johnson’s books had given great offence to many in the highest stations in this Church.  Dr. Hancock, Dr. Wise, and Dr. Turner, and some others were encouraged to answer him; but they were all found to be too weak to be any of them, or all together, a match for a man of his solid learning and judgment: he was visibly their superior in learning and argument, and their faint essays served but to raise his reputation.”  Brett’s Remarks on Review, p. 122.]

         *[“This eminent person, whoever he was (for Mr. Johnson does not name him), and who was least expected to favour the doctrine of the sacrifice, had not the courage to deny it to be one.”  Brett, ibid.  The design, I suppose, of that eminent person, was not to enter into the debate at all, but only to suggest an healing thought, viz. that since every thing of moment was perfectly secure without the material hypothesis, there could be no good reason left for the warmth that was shown in it.  A wise reflection: which ought to have been thankfully received, and seriously attended to.]

 

 

Chapter  I

Shewing some Excesses of the new Scheme, in depreciating spiritual Sacrifices.

         I.  I made mention before of Mr. Johnson’s taking it for granted, that spiritual sacrifice cannot be sacrifice properly so called:* which was throwing off a very important question too negligently, and forbidding it a fair hearing.

         *[See above.  I forgot to take Grotius into my list above; who says, “Eleemosynae et jejunia et res similes sunt sacrae actiones, et quidem externae; ideoque cum fiunt ex fide in Christum, sunt sacrificia novi foederis, etiam talia per quae Deus nobis redditur propitius.”  Grot. Vot. pro Pace, p. 670.  Cp. 715.]

         II. Elsewhere he maintains, that “it is impossible in the nature of things, that prayer and praise without sacrifice” (he meant material sacrifice) “can be better than with it.” [Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part ii. p. 123.]  I pass by the pretense offered in support of this paradox; because it is an old one, borrowed from the Romanists: and it was solidly confuted long ago, by our very learned and judicious Mr. Mason. [Mason de Min Anglic. p. 585.]  I shall only note further, that the author might as justly have said, that it is impossible for uncircumcision to be better than circumcision, because he who receives circumcision as he ought must of course have the true circumcision of the heart, and both must needs be better than none.

         III.  Another the like paradox is that “prayer and praise are absurdly preferred to material sacrifices.” [Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part ii. p. 127.]  Much might be said in confutation of this assertion, both from Scripture and antiquity: but I consult brevity; besides that the bare mentioning such things is sufficient to expose them.  I shall only ask, how came material incense to be laid aside, and naked prayer to be preferred before it, as proper to the saints, under the Gospel? [Revel. 5:8.  Cp. Irenaeus, lib. iv. c. 17. p. 249.]  Incense was symbolical prayer; prayer is the evangelical incense, and as much preferable to the other, as truth is to shadow, or thing signified to the sign or figure of it.

         IV.  To disparage spiritual sacrifice yet further, he says, “A contrite spirit is called a sacrifice by David, though it be no more than a disposition of mind fitting us for devotion and humiliation, and may prevail with God when no real [viz. material] sacrifice is to be had.” [Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part ii. p. 128.]  An unseemly reflection upon what are emphatically called the sacrifices of God, in that very place, [In Psalm 51:17.] as vastly preferable to material sacrifices.  The Psalmist did not mean, when material sacrifice was not to be had: for in the verse immediately preceding he says, “Thou desirest not sacrifice, else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering.” [The pretenses made for changing the translation, in order to elude the sense, (p. 146,) appear so forced and unnatural, as not to deserve a serious confutation.]  What could be said plainer, to shew the preference of the spiritual sacrifices above all other?

         V.  The author goes on in the same strain: “Whatever is now said of prayer without sacrifice, it is certain, that it is but mere synagogue worship.” [Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part ii. p. 128.]  It is certain that such prayer is the worship of the saints, under the Gospel, as I before noted.  But, I presume, this ingenious turn was thought on to anticipate or to retort the charge of Judaism; which may justly be objected to material sacrifices, and frequently has been.  It is odd to speak of public prayer without sacrifice, when such prayer is itself a Christian sacrifice: but he meant prayer without a material sacrifice; that, in his account, is mere synagogue worship.  He forgot, that it runs in Christ’s name.

         VI.  Another position is, that “a sacrifice of righteousness signifies a noble or rich sacrifice, such as it was proper for King David to offer.” [Johnson, ibid. p. 130.]  But learned men have well shewn, that it signifies true and spiritual sacrifice, [See Vitringa, de Vet. Synagog. p. 65.  Observat. Sacr. tom. ii. p. 499.  In Isa. tom. ii. pp. 56, 733, 829.] as opposed to material, typical, symbolical: and such spiritual sacrifice is really richer and nobler than an hecatomb.  I am aware that something may be speciously pleaded from Psalm 51:19: and Mr. Johnson makes his use of it. [Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part ii. p. 130.]  But the learned Vitringa seems to me to have given a just account of that whole matter. [Vitringa in Isa. tom. ii. p. 733.]

         VII.  To disparage spiritual sacrifices yet more, and to give the reader as low and contemptible an idea of them as possible, they are compared with the wood offerings [Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part ii. p. 225.] mentioned in Nehemiah [Nehem. 10:34, 13:31.]; the fuel brought for the use of the sacrifices: and it is thereupon observed, that “the Jews of old hoped, as well as other people, by their sweet scented cane and wood, to render their sacrifice a more agreeable service.” [Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part ii. p. 225.]  A coarse comparison!  Had not the author otherwise bore the character of a grave and serious writer, one could not have taken this extraordinary thought to proceed from any reverent regard towards spiritual sacrifices, the sacrifices of God.  However, we may perceive from hence, that as often as any one should have objected the meanness of a loaf offering, or a wine offering, he was provided with an answer, and prepared to retort.

         VIII.  I shall take notice but of one article more, under this head.  It was a famous topic among the Christian Fathers, when arguing for spiritual sacrifices, that spiritual offerings were most agreeable to spiritual beings, [Tertullian. de Orat. c. xxvii. xxviii.  See Review, above.  Lactantii Epit. c. lviii. p. 169.  De ver. Cult. lib. vi. c. 24, 25.] such as God, and the souls of men: the same argument has been as justly urged by learned moderns.  But in order to break the force of it, it is observed, that Porphyry of old, and the Quakers of late days, have carried those reasonings too far, in the spiritualizing way. [Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part ii. p. 127.]  Be it so: may not wise men know where to stop?  Has not external religion been oftener and more grievously perverted, and carried into extremes?  We know what superstitions and dangerous deceits arose from the use of material incense in the Eucharist, [Vid. Renaudotius, Collect. Liturg. tom. i. 201.] by the making it an offering for sin:* neither have we reason to expect anything better from the bringing in a material mincha, for the like purposes, into the Christian Church.

         *[Jacob. Liturg. pp. 38, 53. ed. Fabric.  Marci Liturg. 261. 273.  Ordo Commun. Renaud. tom. ii. pp. 4, 6, 18, 19.  Mozarab. Miss. in Martene, tom. i. pp. 470, 498.  Dionys. Missal. ibid. p. 519.  Prudent. Pontif. ibid. 528.  Maysacens. Missal. ibid. 538.  Compare, 591, 601.]

         However, this way of depreciating internal religion and spiritual sacrifice is not the way to promote the prime uses, the practical ends and purposes of the holy Communion.  It is indeed said on the other hand, in the way of apology, that they “do not at all lessen the value of any internal grace, or the necessity of a pious life,” but the contrary. [Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. p. 283, alias p. 288. Brett’s Remarks on Review, p. 139.]  They do not mean it, I easily believe: but in fact they do it.  For every cool, considering man must see, that those low notions of spiritual sacrifice (very different from the elevated ideas which Scripture and Catholic antiquity everywhere inculcate) can have no good aspect upon practical religion.  As to the pretense of “raising the dignity of the Sacrament,” [Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. p. 283.] by a material sacrifice, it is marvelous that any man of moderate discernment can entertain such a thought: for the reverse is the certain truth.  The dignity of the holy Sacrament must infallibly suffer, if so mean, so unprimitive a sacrifice should ever be admitted into it.  The ancients constantly preserved the dignity of the Eucharist, by supporting the dignity of spiritual sacrifices: if moderns will submit to learn of them, they will use the same effectual methods, often proved and tried.

 

Chapter II

Shelving the Excesses of the New Scheme in Overvaluing Material Sacrifices.

         1.  It is alleged, that “there is more intrinsic value in a loaf of bread and a flagon of wine, than in all the gold and silver in the Indies; because the former will for some time support our lives, the other cannot do it of itself, but only as by the consent of men, it has a value set upon it.” [Johnson, ibid. part ii. p. 62.]  Upon which I observe, 1. That the argument proves too much: for, by the same argument, a flask of air would have more intrinsic value than all the rest put together; since air is absolutely necessary to support life, which none of the rest are.  2. The author observes elsewhere, that bloody sacrifices, in themselves, are of the nobler sort; [Johnson, Propit. Oblat. p. 10.] that is, have more intrinsic value: and yet David (a very wise and good man) disdained to offer even such to God, if they were to cost him nothing. [2 Sam. 24:24.]  He measured the value of the sacrifice by the self-denial, the respect, and the affection of the offerer, shewn in part by the costliness of the offering.  And indeed, when God did require material sacrifices at all, he required costly ones, of as many as could afford it.  But what do our bread and wine cost a whole congregation?  What the communicants, who, perhaps, are not one half of the whole?  What does the quota of any single communicant amount to?  Besides that, in reality, we give God nothing: we take all to ourselves, though not all of it provided at our own proper cost or charge.  Was there ever such a sacrifice known or thought on, either among Jews or Gentiles, since the world stood?  Or were the primitive Christians ever charged with anything of this kind?

         II.  It is pretended further that this material oblation is of “greater value than ourselves.” [Johnson, Propit. Oblat. p. 107.]  Impossible, if we ourselves are the offerers:* for it is a clear and uncontestable maxim (as I have hinted above) that the value of a sacrifice can never rise higher than the value of the sacrificers.  Upon the strength of which maxim our very learned and judicious Dean Field did not scruple to intimate, that if a man could be supposed to sacrifice even Christ our Lord, it would not be so valuable as the sacrifice of himself. [Field on the Church, p. 209.]  The same principle is confirmed by the united voices of the ancients, who always looked upon self-sacrifice as the most valuable of any.**  They had good reason to think so, if either our Lord’s example, or St. Paul’s authority, [Rom. 12:1.  Phil. 2:17.  2 Tim. 4:6.] or the nature of the thing itself can be of any weight.

         *[That we are the offerers (and not Christ, as the Romanists absurdly pretend) is allowed by Dr. Hickes, who says, “As the congregation offered, so it consecrated and performed the whole eucharistic service, by the ministration of the priest; who therefore always administered in the plural number ... Ļ__________ ___, “we offer,” etc.  Christian Priesth. vol. i. pref.  Account, pp. 22, 23.  The Romanists themselves allowed it, a few years before the Council of Trent; as appears from Alphonsus a Castro. Haeres. lib. x. fol. 214. ed. A.D. 1549.  “Sacerdos, in persona Ecclesiae, praesentat Deo Patri oblationem factam per Filium in ara crucis.”  Cp. Field, p. 210, and Spalatensis, lib. v. c. 6. p. 282.]

         **[Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. pp. 836, 848, 849, 860.  Origen, tom. ii. p. 364. ed. Bened.  Cyprian, Ep. 76.  p. 232, alias Ep. 77. p. 159.  Euseb. Demonst. p. 40.  Basil, tom. iii. p. 207. ed. Bened.  Nazianzen, tom. i. p. 38.  Hilarius, p. 154. ed. Bened.  Chrysost. tom. v. pp. 20, 231, 316, 503. tom. vii. p. 216. ed. Bened.  Augustin. de Civit. Dei, lib. xix. c. 23. lib. x. c. 20. ed. Bened.  Procopius, in Isa. p. 22.  Gregor. M. Dial. iv. c. 59.]

         III.  It is pretended, that the bread and wine are the most excellent and valuable sacrifice, because “they are in mystery and inward power, though not in substance, the body and blood of Christ, and therefore the most sublime and divine sacrifice that men or angels can offer” [Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part ii. p. 60: compare 67, 141.]: they are enriched, replenished, overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, and by such Divine influence rendered the body and blood in efficacy and virtue, receiving by the Spirit a life-giving power.*

         *[Johnson, ibid. p. 171.  Note, That overshadowing is peculiar to Baptism: for because it is said that a man must be born of water and of the Spirit, the Fathers sometimes followed the figure, in describing the new birth.  The Spirit is quasi maritus; the water is marita, and foecundata, and therefore styled unda genitalis. The Holy Ghost overshadows; the water brings forth; and the holy thing born is the new Christian.  How to adapt the same figure to the Eucharist, I see not; nor how to apply it to the purpose of sacrifice.]

         To which I answer, 1. That it is certainly a valuable Sacrament: and what the author here enumerates may skew the value of what God gives to us, not the value of what we give to him in it.  The Spirit, which is supposed to make all the value, is what God gives to us in the Eucharist, not what we give to God: for it cannot be supposed that we sacrifice the Holy Spirit.  So that all that the author has here said, however pertinent to the sacramental part of the Eucharist, is foreign to the sacrificial, and can add little to the value of it.  It is but consecrated bread and wine still that we are supposed to sacrifice; unless we take in Christ’s natural body to enrich the sacrifice, which would be Popery; or else the Divine Spirit, which is worse.  2. Besides, it is certain, that the baptismal waters are as much enriched, replenished, overshadowed by the Holy Spirit, and have the same (if not greater) life-giving power, and yet they are no sacrifice at all.  3. I have before hinted, that no sacrifice which we can offer can be more valuable than ourselves: and therefore all this pompous train of words must come to nothing.  4. The notion of the Spirit’s coming upon the elements, to make them absolutely the body, is a gross notion; arising only from a popular form of speech, [See my Review, above.] and not consistent with the true and ancient doctrine, that the unworthy eat not the body nor drink the blood of Christ in the Eucharist:* neither have they the communion or fellowship of the Holy Spirit.  It is not sufficient here to say, that they do receive the Spirit, but receive no benefit, because they resist or quench the Spirit: for being “guilty of the body and blood of the Lord,” in the very act (1 Cor. 11:27) there is no room to suppose that in that very act they receive motions of grace: and if they receive none, there are none to be quenched.  Or if, on the contrary, they were certain to receive the kindly motions of the Spirit in the very act, who should forbid the unworthy coming to receive motions of grace?  This evasion therefore will not answer the purpose.  The Spirit deserts ill men in their sinful acts: therefore the unworthy do not receive the Spirit, but the elements only: therefore again, they receive not the body; because without the Spirit, the elements, ex hypothesi, are not the body and blood, but bare elements, having a relative holiness, because before consecrated, and that is all.  5. If the bread and wine once consecrated were absolutely the body and blood, by means of the Spirit, there is no reason why the baptismal waters should not be thought Christ’s blood absolutely, by means of the same Spirit.  It is certain, from the nature of the thing, and it is confirmed by the concurring verdict of antiquity, [See my Review, above, and to the references in the margin add, Salmasius contr. Grot. pp. 186, 191, 394, and Patrick’s Full View of the Eucharist, p. 82.] that we are as properly dipped in the blood of Christ in Baptism, as we eat the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.  Therefore the baptismal water is as valuable as the eucharistic wine, and as fit to make a sacrifice of; and it is also commemorative of the death and passion: consequently the elements in either Sacrament, being blessed with like privileges, and having the like dignity, have all of them. in that view, the same title, and ought all of them to be sacrifices, as much as any.

         *[Above.  “Ostensum est Dominum recedere cum negatur, nec immerentibus ad salutem prodesse quod sumitur, quando gratia salutaris in cinerem, sanctitate fugiente, mutetur.”  Cyprian. de Laps. p. 214. ed. Bened.]

         IV.  It is further pretended, that the consecrated bread and wine are changed, if not in their substance, yet in their inward qualities [Grabe, Defens. Eccl. pp. 75, 87, 20, 85, 91.  Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. pp. 254, 255, alias pp. 258, 259, 163, 181, 183, 244. first ed.]: which appears to be sound only, without meaning; or words without ideas.  When water is said to have been miraculously changed into wine, the words carry some idea of an internal change of qualities: but when wine remains wine still, not changed as to colour, or taste, or smell, or any other perceivable quality, it is hard to say what that inward change means, or what idea it carries with it.  Outward relations, adventitious uses or offices, are easily understood; and relative holiness carries some sense in it [See my Review, above.]: but the inward change, the inhering, intrinsic holiness, supposed in this case, will not comport either with true philosophy or sound theology.  Whatever it means, or whatever it is conceived to be, certain it is, that it belongs as much to the consecrated waters of Baptism [Above.] as to the consecrated elements of the Eucharist: and so let it pass.

         V.  The most important paradox of all, relating to this head, is, that the consecrated elements are the substitutes of the body and blood; are sacrificed first, and afterwards taken by the communicants in lieu of the natural body and blood, or of the sacrifice of the cross. [Johnson, Propit. Oblat. pp. 29, 30, 44, 76.]  “The eucharistic bread and wine are made the most perfect and consummate representatives of the body and blood. ... They are not only substituted, but they are, by the power of the Spirit which is communicated to them, ... made the lively, efficacious Sacrament of his body and blood. ... The visible material substitutes ... are the bread and wine: and when the Holy Spirit, which is his invisible representative, communicates its 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. [Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. p. 183, alias p. 186.  Compare p. 344, alias 349, and p. 176, alias 179.]  The sacramental body and blood of Christ are substituted instead of the natural, and are therefore first to be presented to the most worthy party in the covenant, the infinite grantor of all mercies, and then, in the next place, to the least worthy persons, or the grantees, the whole body of Christian people.” [Ibid. Pref. to second edit.]  How to make any clear sense or consistency of these or the like positions, I know not; but they seem to be embarrassed with insuperable perplexities.  The notion of substitute, as here applied, appears unaccountable.  The sacramental body is supposed to be substituted for the natural, so as to be exclusively an equivalent for it, made such consummate proxy, substitute, representative, by the power and presence of the Holy Spirit with it and in it.  This is the notion, if I can understand it.  And if this be the notion, it is very different from the old notion of instruments of investiture, or deeds of conveyance, supposed to convey instrumentally some other thing, [See my Review, above.] but not to be so given in lieu of it, as to exclude it, or supersede it, or to supply the want of it.*  The rights, privileges, honours, offices, so conveyed, are supposed to go with the pledges, and not to be made up to the grantee by an equivalent.  The pledges (a ring, suppose, or book, or parchment, or staff) are worthless things in themselves, and are valuable only for what accompanies them, not for what they really enclose or contain.  In a word, such pledges are not exclusively given in lieu of the things which they are pledges of (for then the party would be no richer for them than the bare pledges amount to), but such a manner of delivery is made in lieu of another manner; and the pledge and thing go together.**  In the Eucharist, for example, Christ’s crucified body and blood shed (that is, his atonement and sacrifice) are spiritually eaten and drank, under the pledges of corporal refreshment: and even the glorified body is received into real, but mystical union, under the same symbols. Those symbols, with what they contain, are not substitutes, in the sense of equivalents for the things, to supersede them; but they are instruments to convey them, and to bring them in effect to us. 2. It is not easy to explain how the supposed substitutes can be any sacrifice at all to God. The elements are not conceived substitutes of the body and blood, any otherwise than by the power and presence of the Spirit. The elements, with the Spirit, (not separate from the Spirit, which alone renders them so valuable,) are supposed the substitutes. Is the Spirit then sacrificed along with the elements? That is absurd. But if the Spirit makes no part of the thing sacrificed, the value departs from it, yea, and the essence of the substitutes; for the ‘body and blood, that is, the substitutes, are not sacrificed, but the elements only. If it be said, that grace or virtue accompanies the elements, in the presenting them to God, like as in the presenting the same elements to man; this again is perfectly unintelligible. We can understand that pardon and sanctification are presented to the communicants along with the symbols: but how pardon and sanctification should be presented, in the way of sacrifice, to God, is not easy to explain. 3. I must here also observe, that whatever those substitutes mean, the baptismal waters have as clear a claim, in that case, as the eucharistic elements can have: they are as certainly substituted in the sense of pledges, and in a sacramental way, as the other can be supposed to be. But it never was the intention of either Sacrament, that we should, in a sacrificial way, present to God as much or the same that God gives to us.***  I see not the sense or the modesty of pretending to it. Spirit, pardon, grace, we may be glad to receive; but we have no right, no pretense, no power to offer the same in sacrifice. It is neither practicable nor conceivable; it is mere confusion: which confusion arises, partly, from the want of distinguishing between what is in the elements, from what comes with them; and partly, from the not distinguishing between the sacramental view of the Eucharist and the sacrificial; or between the gifts of God to man, and the gifts of man to God. The elements are in effect the body to us, because God gives us the body by and with the elements: but they are not in effect the body to God; because we do not give to God the fruits of the body crucified, or the privileges of the body glorified. A man must have very confused sentiments, who can argue from what we receive, in this case, to what we give as a sacrifice.

         *[For were it so, then the inward part, or thing signified, would not be our Lord’s body, but a fictitious body given in its room: and if made such body absolutely, by an union with the Spirit, it would be more properly the body of the Spirit, than our Lord’s body, from which it is supposed distinct: and in this way, the very idea of our mystical union with Christ’s glorified body would be obscured or lost, and we should be but as aliens from his proper body; unless two bodies of Christ (not sign and thing, but absolutely two bodies, for the sacramental is said to be absolutely the body) were given at once in the Eucharist.]

         **[See my Review, above.  N.B.  A thing may be said to be given in lieu, or instead of another thing, two ways: 1 In a sense exclusive; as when a stone, suppose, is given instead of bread, or a serpent instead of fish: where neither the fish nor the bread are supposed to be given, nor anything equivalent.  To the same exclusive sense belongs the giving value for kind; as money, suppose, instead of house or land: where again neither the house nor the land is supposed to be given, but an equivalent in money.  2. But one thing is also said to be given in lieu of another thing, in an inclusive or accumulative sense; as when deeds are delivered instead of an estate, which is given with them and by them.  Here, in strictness, the deeds are not substitutes or equivalents for the estate: but one form of delivery, which is practicable and easy, is substituted and accepted, instead of another form, which the principal thing given is not capable of.  In this latter inclusive sense, the symbols of the Eucharist may be called substitutes, but not in the former.]

         ***[Some such confuse notion appears more than once in the Propitiatory Oblation, pp. 27, 43.  Comp. Preface to second edit. of Unbloody Sacrifice, and Advertisement, p. 498.  Brevint takes notice of the like confusion in the conception of some Romanists upon this article.  Depth and Myst. p. 20.]

 

Chapter  III.

Pointing Out Some Excesses in Relation to Our Lord’s Supposed Sacrifice

in the Eucharist.

         1.  It is pretended that our blessed Lord offered up his sacramental body, that is, the consecrated elements, as a material sacrifice in the Eucharist. [Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. pp. 85, 90, 92, edit. 2nd, part ii. pp. 1, 3, 6, 7, 178, 246, 242, et passim.]  Now, in the first place, I find no Scripture proof of this position.  The Romanists, in support of the general point of a material or sensible sacrifice, have often taken their tour from Melchizedek in Genesis clown to Hebrews 13:10.  And they have as often been pursued, in like order, by the best-learned Protestants, [Chemnitius, Rainoldes, Bilson, Hospinian, Duplessis, Mason, Spalatensis, Montague, Morton, Albertinus, Joan. Forbesius, Brevint, Towerson, Kidder, Payne.] and forced out of all their entrenchments.

         The plea from “hoc facite,” when first set up, was abundantly answered by a very learned Romanist: I mean the excellent Picherell, [Picherellus, pp. 63, 136.] who wrote about 1562, and died in 1590.  Protestants also* have often confuted it; and the Papists themselves, several of them, have long ago given it up.  The other boasted plea, drawn from the use of the present tense, in the words of the institution, has been so often refuted and exposed,** that I cannot think it needful to call that matter over again, in an age of so much light and learning.  The fairest pretenses from antiquity have likewise been again and again fully answered, mostly by the same hands.  Wherefore, let that be my apology for not taking distinct notice of every particular advanced by the late learned Mr. Johnson; who has but little of moment, which bad not been completely obviated on one side (as it had been anticipated on the other side) long before he wrote in this cause.  He was indeed a stranger to what had been done; because he had resolved and determined from the first so to be, and held to his resolution all along; as he frankly declared in 1714, and again in 1724.***  I commend not his rule nor his conduct in that particular.  Wise men will be always glad to see what wise men have said before them, in any point of controversy, and will not think themselves so perfectly secure against mistaking the sense either of Scripture or Fathers, as to need no counsellors to assist them, nor any eyes but their own.****  It was not right to imagine, that in 200 years time, or nearly (in a question very frequently canvassed by the best-learned men), nothing had been thought on, nothing done, towards clearing the point; more than what a single writer might do at once, with a Bible only and some Fathers before him.  I should not wonder if the strongest genius, walking by such a rule, should commit abundance of mistakes in the management of a controversy of any considerable compass or delicacy, such as this is.  But I pass on.

         *[Joan. Forbesius, p. 616.  Mornaeus, p. 212.  Salmasius contr. Grot. p. 444.  Albertinus, pp. 498, 509.  Morton, b. vi. ch. 1. p. 390.  Towerson, p. 276.  Brevint, Depth and Myst. p. 128.  Payne, p. 9, etc.  Pfaffius, pp. 186, 220, 259, 269.]

         **[Picherellus, pp. 62, 138.  Spalatensis, p. 278.  Mason, p. 614.  Morton, b. vi. ch. 1. p. 394.  Albertinus, pp. 74, 76, 78, 119.  Joan. Forbesius, p. 617.  Brevint, p. 128.  Kidder and Payne.  Pfaffius, pp. 232, 233.]

         ***[“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.”  Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, pref. epist. p. 39, first and second edit.]

         ****[Of the use and necessity of consulting moderns (as well as ancients), see Review, above.  To neglect moderns, in such cases, is really nothing else but preferring one modern to all the rest, and claiming to be heard as an interpreter of Scripture and Fathers, at the same time refusing the favour of an hearing to every interpreter besides.]

         It is certainly of some moment that so learned and judicious a man as Picherellus (critically skilled in Scripture and Fathers, and under no bias, except it were to the Romish Church, in which he lived and died) should so expressly and fully declare against our Lord’s offering any expiatory sacrifice in the Eucharist. [Picherell, p. 134.]  It is also of some moment, that the current opinion before the Council of Trent was against the first Eucharist’s being an expiatory sacrifice; and that the divines of Trent were almost equally divided upon that question; and that it was chiefly fear of the consequences, obvious to Protestants, which obliged the Council to controvert the then current persuasion. [See Jurieu, Hist. of the Council of Trent, p. 380.]  It is not without its weight, that Jansenius, Bishop of Ghent, who died fourteen years after, was content to take in spiritual sacrifice, in order to make out some sacrifice in the first Eucharist:* as to which he judged very right; for undoubtedly our Lord so sacrificed in the Eucharist, and we do it now.  But proof has been given, nor ever can be given, of our Lord’s sacrificing the elements.  He might, yea, and did offer the elements for consecration (which is very different from sacrificing, being done also in Baptism), or he might present them as signs and figures of a real sacrifice, being also signs and figures of real body and blood: but as they were not the real body and blood which they represented, so neither were they the real sacrifice: neither can it be made appear that they were any sacrifice at all.

         *[Dicendum est, quod, Christum in Coena et Eucharistiae institutione sacrificium obtulisse, primum quidem satis est significatum, cum dicitur gratias egisse.  Gratiarum actio enim est quoddam sacrificium: a qua Christi actione Sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Domini habuit nomen illud ab initio Ecclesiae, ut diceretur Eucharistia.  Igitur cum gratiarum actio est sacrificium, et Sacramentum hoc dicatur et sit Eucharistia (quod est gratiarum actio), consequitur ex Christi actione, et nomine a Christi actione imposito, Sacramentum hoc esse sacrificium.  Unde in canone dicitur sacrificium laudis: de quo Psalmista, immola sacrificium laudis;” etc.  Jansenius, Comm. in Concord. Evang. p. 904.]

         As the point now in question has not been proved, there is the less occasion to disprove it.  Want of proof is sufficient reason for rejecting a position, according to the old rule, that the proof lies upon him that affirms.  However, I may, “ex abundanti,” throw in one reason against it, which may be as good as a thousand, because it is decisive.  If the elements were a sacrifice in the first Eucharist, as upon the principles lately advanced, then they were given for remission of sins; consequently were a sin offering and an expiatory sacrifice: which is directly repugnant to the whole tenor of the New Testament, everywhere ascribing true expiation solely to the death of Christ.  It is in vain to plead, that this other sacrifice expiated in virtue of what it represented.  The blood of bulls and of goats represented Christ’s sacrifice, and expiated, so far as they did expiate in virtue of it: yet St. Paul plainly teaches, that it was not possible, in the very nature of the thing, for those secondary sacrifices to “take away sins,” [Heb. 10:4.] that is, to make true and spiritual expiation.  They might atone (and that in virtue of the grand atonement) for legal offences, or typical sins, and might sanctify to the “purifying of the flesh,” [Heb. 9:13.] procuring some temporal blessings, which were figures and shadows of eternal: but more than that they could not do.  True expiation always rested immediately and solely in the prime sacrifice.  And the secondary sacrifices could avail no further, by any virtue whatever, than to secondary, that is, typical and temporal expiation.  Now, as we have no typical expiation at all under the Gospel, nor look for any remission but what is spiritual, and “pertaining to the conscience;” [Heb. 9:9.] it is exceeding plain, that the remission of the Eucharist resolves immediately and entirely into the prime and grand sacrifice, and not into any supposed elemental sin offering.  Neither indeed is there any such thing under the Gospel; it being one of the great Gospel privileges to have immediate access to the true expiation, and not to be kept, as it were, at a distance from it, by the intervention of secondary sacrifices, or secondary expiations. [See  above.]

         Such most certainly is the doctrine of Scripture and of all antiquity: and our own excellent Liturgy was altogether formed upon it.  Accordingly we never ask remission on account of any expiatory sacrifice but Christ’s alone; never conclude our prayers (no, not even in the Communion service) through the sin offering of the Eucharist, but through Jesus Christ our Lord: that is, through his merits, solely and immediately, and his sacrifice, not through any sacrifice of our own: which would be both superstitious and profane.

         If the reader would see the sense of the ancients, with respect to the words of institution, “body given and blood shed for remission of sins,” he may turn to Albertinus, [Albertinus, p. 78.  Compare74, 119.  And Bishop Morton, b. i. part 3. p. 112; b. vi. ch. i. p. 394, etc.; ch. viii. p. 475, etc.] who produces a long list of ancients* (besides a multitude of moderns, Schoolmen and Romanists),** all interpreting the words, not of the sacramental body and blood given in the Eucharist, but of the real body and blood which were to be given upon the cross.  I may add one more, older than any of them, namely, Tertullian; who does not only so interpret the words, but occasionally mentions it as a very great absurdity, to interpret the “body given for you,” of the “bread given”: inasmuch as it would amount to saying, that the bread was to be crucified for us.***  These things considered., we may take leave to conclude, that the notion of Christ’s offering the consecrated elements as a sacrifice, may justly be numbered among the unwarrantable excesses of some few moderns, who did not well consider what they were doing.

         *[Origen, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Jerome, Pelagius, Theodorit, Fulgentius, Ferrandus, Primasius, Pseud-Ambrose, Hesychius, Remigius, Sedulius, Bede, Isidorus, Claudius Taurinensis, Haymo, Euthymius, Theophylactus, Anselm.]

         **[Aquinas, Hugo Cardinalis Carthusianus, Titelmannus, Valentia, Salmeron, Są, Jansenius, Cajetan, Vasquez, Maldonate, Barradas, Suarez, etc.]

         ***[“Si propterea panem corpus sibi finxit quia corporis carebat veritate; ergo panem debuit tradere pro nobis faciebat ad vanitatem Marcionis, ut panis crucifigeretur.”  Tertull. contr. Marc. lib. iv. cap. 40. p. 571.]

         II. It is pretended further, that such sacrifice of the consecrated elements, or sacramental body and blood; was our Lord’s most solemn act of his Melchizedekian priesthood.  Indeed, to make out this Melchizedekian offering, sometimes our Lord’s sacrificing himself along with the symbols is taken in:* but I wave the consideration of that additional part at present, designing to treat of it separately in the next article.  The sacrifice of the consecrated symbols by itself, must, upon the foot of the new scheme, be reckoned Melchizedekian; as well because our eucharistic sacrifice (which is not of the natural body, but of the sacramental only) is reputed Melchizedekian, [Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. p. 317, alias 322.] as also because it is self-evident, that Melchizedek did not sacrifice the natural body of Christ, which was not then in being, but the sacramental only, if either.  If therefore our Lord’s sacrifice of himself in the first Eucharist be taken in to complete the most solemn act, then it must be said, that he offered two sacrifices in the Eucharist, and both of them Melchizedekian; of which I shall say more below, in the place proper for it.  Our present concern is only with the sacrifice of the consecrated elements, considered as a Melchizedekian sacrifice by itself.

         *[“The Spirit by which they wrote directed them ... to represent our Saviour, as now performing the most solemn act of his Melchizedekian priesthood, and therefore as offering his body and blood to God, under the symbols of bread and wine.”  Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. p. 83, alias 86.]

         I apprehend that it has not, and that it cannot be proved, that Melchizedek (so far as his priesthood, or the acts of it are recorded in Scripture) made any expiatory, or any material sacrifice at all.  His sacerdotal function was described but in part, to make it the fitter type of part of our Lord’s priesthood.  Other parts of our Lord’s priesthood were sufficiently typified by the Aaronic priesthood: but sonic further type was still wanting, to typify what Aaron’s priesthood could not do.  Aaron’s typified the transient part, the atoning part; which was to be performed once for all by our Lord: but the abiding or everlasting part (viz. the distributing the subsequent or permanent benefits of that atonement) was not provided for in Aaron’s priesthood, considered as typical of our Lord’s, but was to be typified another way; namely, by the priesthood of Melchizedek, represented no further in Scripture than the reason of such type required.  Melchizedek therefore was introduced, not as offering any sacrifice of atonement (that was to be considered as previously executed), but as conveying or applying, instrumentally, the subsequent blessings of that atonement.  This was part of the sacerdotal office: and in respect of this part only, Melchizedek was introduced as a priest; to typify, as I said, the permanent part of our Lord’s priesthood.  Types, at the best, are but imperfect resemblances of their antitypes or archetypes: and therefore it is no wonder, if our Lord’s priesthood (a complicated office) could not sufficiently be represented, whole and entire, by any single type, but might require several, and of different kinds, to represent it distinctly, as branched out into its several distinct particulars.

         Whoever well considers in what manner Melchizedek is introduced in Genesis, [Gen. 14:18.] and what is further said of him by the Psalmist [Psalm 110:4.] and by St. Paul, [Heb. 5:6, 10–11,  6:20, 7:1–24.] will easily perceive the truth of what I say.  Melchizedek, therefore, so far as he is brought in for a type, did not sacrifice at all (except it were in the spiritual way of lauds), but he instrumentally conveyed to Abraham the blessings of the grand sacrifice; like as Christian ministers now do to the children of Abraham, that is, to all the faithful.

         The ancient Fathers, who have often been wrongfully appealed to in this matter, by Papists in general, and by some Protestants, meant no more than what I have here said: though it would be tedious to enter into a detail of them.*  They meant that Melchizedek, by a divine instinct, [Vid. Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. lib. v. cap. 3. p. 243.] foreseeing the sacrifice of the cross, offered to God, by way of thanksgiving, a mental, vocal, manual representation or figuration of it, by the symbols of bread and wine; and by the same symbols, instrumentally conveyed to Abraham the spiritual blessings of it.  This I observe of those Fathers who make the most of what Melchizedek did: but the Fathers of the first two centuries and a half say nothing expressly of his offering to God anything, (whether in a spiritual way or otherwise,) but only of his feasting Abraham and his family.  As to the later Fathers, some of them speak with the same reserve as the more ancient Fathers did; others are more explicit: but none of them, I conceive, went further than what I have mentioned.  Upon the whole therefore, their testimonies are altogether foreign to the point of sacrificing the elements, being that they were not considered as sacrifices, but as figures of a sacrifice, and instruments of a thanksgiving service.

         *[The ancients referred to on this article are, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius, Julius Firmicus, Epiphanius, Philastrius, Ambrosius, Chrysostoin, Jerome, Pelagills, Austin, Isidorus Pelusiota, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodorit, Leo Magnus, Arnobius junior, Caesarius of Arles, Cassiodorus, Primasius, Isidorus Hispalensis, Damascene, Pseud-Athanasius, Pseudo-Cyprianus, Pseud-Ambrosius, Paschasius Radbertus, Oecumenius, Thenphylact, Euthymius, Potho Prumiensis; and perhaps more.

         What Mr. Johnson has pleaded in favour of his notion had been sufficiently obviated by Picherell, [Picherell, pp. 116, 135, 333, etc.] among the Romanists, long before; and by many judicious Protestants* after him.  The same has been confuted by the learned Pfaffius [Pfaffius, pp. 196, 278, 321, 323.] since; as also by the reverend and learned Mr. Lewis, in a small tract, [Lewis, Answ. to Unbloody Sacrifice, pp. 18–23.] containing much in a little; close, clear, and judicious, published in 1714.

         *[Jewel, Answ. to Harding, p, 425.  Peter Martyr, Loc. Comm. p. 895.  Bilson, p. 702.  Spalatensis, p. 272.  Mason, p. 557.  Gul. Forbesius, p. 672, second edit.  Jackson, vol. ii. p. 955. vol. iii. p. 305, Morton, b. vi.  Brevint, Depth and Myst. p. 107, etc. 135.  Outram, p. 228.  Kidder and Payne.  Albertinus, pp. 199, 200.]

         The sum then is that if our Lord’s performances in the first Eucharist were such as Melchizedek performed (by the accounts which Scripture and antiquity give of them), they amounted only to a spiritual sacrifice of lauds, a representation of the sacrifice to be made upon the cross, and a distribution of the benefits and blessings of that sacrifice to his disciples.

         III.  It is pretended, that our Lord did not only sacrifice his sacramental body in the Eucharist, but his natural body besides, sacrificed both in the same act. [Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. pp. 49, 83, 118, first edit. alias 51, 86, 122, second edit. part ii. pp. 6–10.]  This refinement of the material scheme was not thought on (so far as appears) before 1714, and then hardly submitted to, after much reluctance, by the learned Dr. Hickes; and not well relished by others on the material side, whom Mr. Johnson complained of in 1720. [Johnson, Saxon Laws, pref. p. 56.]  However, the strength of the cause was now made to “depend in a great measure,” upon that “matter of fact” (as it is called [Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part ii. p. 272.]) advanced without proof, or so much as appearance of proof; excepting the precarious argument drawn from the present tense, mentioned above; and except another as slight an argument drawn from John 17:20, taken with some obscure testimonies of Fathers; which at most prove only that our Lord devoted himself in the Eucharist or elsewhere, before his passion, to be an expiatory sacrifice on the cross: not that he sacrificed himself, in the expiatory sense, before.  A person’s devoting himself in order to be such a sacrifice, is not performing the sacrifice, any more than engaging to do a thing is actually doing it.*  So slender are the proofs of this new notion.  But let us see what self-contradictious and other absurdities it contains in it, or carries with it.

         *[Of this see Dr. Turner’s Christian Eucharist no Proper Sacrifice, p. 19, etc.  Field’s words in the like case are very applicable here: “This proveth not a real sacrifice of Christ. ... For his blood is not poured out, neither is he slain indeed.  As in the time of the old Law, if the priest reaching forth his hand to slay the beast that was brought to be sacrificed, had been so hindered by something interposing itself, that he could not slay the same, he had offered no sacrifice, but endeavoured only so to do, so is it here.”  Field, p. 207.  Put “engaged” for “endeavoured,” and the argument is much the same.]

         1.  It is supposed to be the most solemn act of the Melchizedekian priesthood; though it is certain that Melchizedek neither so sacrificed himself, nor our Lord’s natural body or blood, not then existing.

         2.  It supposes two expiatory sacrifices made by our Lord in the Eucharist; one of the sacramental body, and the other of the. real: this the author seems to own, thinking he has some colour for it in Hebrews 9:23, where St. Paul (he says) calls the offering made by Christ sacrifices, in the plural number. [Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part ii. pref. p. 5.]  As to the construction of that text, I am content to refer to commentators, not suspecting that so forced and strange a sense is at all likely to gain many followers: the hypothesis itself must be better supported, before any such odd meaning of that text can be admitted.  But what shall we do with those two sacrifices of our Lord’s in the Eucharist?  They agree not with the words of institution, “This is my body”:  which should rather have run, This is my two bodies, my sacramental one, and my natural: and so likewise the words, “This is my blood.”  Then again, those two sacrifices, being both expiatory, both given for the “life of the world,” there would be two propitiations, two expiations; and we shall want to know what was the precise value of this, and what of that, and whether they differed in value as finite and infinite; or whether they were of equal worth.

         It is pleaded, that they were both but one oblation: which is resembled to a deed of gift, where, by delivery of a parchment, lands or houses are conveyed; and it is further likened to a man’s presenting to God houses, etc., by a piece of money, or a pair of gloves. [Johnson, Saxon Laws, pref. 57.]  But this account will not tally, because the sacramental body is supposed to be a complete substitute, [See above.] made so by the Holy Spirit; which therefore must be a great deal more than a pledge or earnest of the natural, being itself absolutely Christ’s body, and invested with the like power and efficacy.  So here were two sacrifices of like power and efficacy, and therefore of like value, as it seems: there were principal and proxy, the thing itself and the equivalent, both together, though they mutually superseded each other. [Ibid.]  The first of them seems to be advanced, in order to make our Lord’s two sacrifices look like one sacrifice; and the second, to the end that ours, which is but one of the two, and infinitely slighter, may yet look as considerable to us now, as both his then were to his disciples.*  But if the elemental sacrifice be considered only as gloves or parchment in comparison, notwithstanding all its inherent virtues and enrichings of the Spirit, then it is not a substitute in the sense contended for, nor of any considerable value; so that instead of calling it a substitute or a sacrifice, we may better call it a sign or figure of our Lord’s sacrifice, or at most a pledge, earnest, or token of our own.  I here take it for granted, that our Lord’s elemental sacrifice was at least as good as ours can be supposed to be: and if even his was but as gloves or parchment (comparatively speaking), ours at this day can be no more; and if so, it does not appear worth the contending for, while we have an infinitely better sacrifice to trust to, and to rest our expiation upon.

         *[N.B.  As there are two inconsistent accounts here tacked together, in order to serve two different purposes, so it is observable that different reasons in different places have been assigned for calling the elements the body: for when they are to be made substitutes, then the reason given for the name of body is that they are in power and effect, by the Spirit, the same with the archetypes, the very body and blood which they represent.  Part i. pp. 177–212.  But when it is to be proved, that Christ offered his natural body besides, then the reason why the elements are called his body is quite another reason, viz. because he offered his natural body a sacrifice by and under the elements, as symbols or pledges.  See part ii. pref. p. 2.  I may note that if the last reason were a true one, we could have no pretense now for calling the elements his body; because it is not our intention to offer, under the symbols, our Lord’s natural body as a sacrifice for the sins of men: we cannot sacrifice Christ our Lord.]

         3.  There is no more proof made that our Lord in the Eucharist consigned his natural body to be broken, and his natural blood to be shed, than that he consigned the same to be then and there eaten and drank.  It is allowed, that what was given for them in the Eucharist, was also given to them; and what was given to them, that they received. [Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, p. 87, alias 91. part ii. p. 112.]  If therefore our Lord then and there gave his natural body and blood for them, they then and there received the same natural body and blood: but if he gave them not, no transfer, no sacrifice was yet made of them.  It is argued, “if the bread and wine were” [in the Eucharist] “given to God, so were Christ’s natural body and blood too” [Johnson, Saxon Laws, pref: 57.]: by the same way of reasoning, if the bread and wine were in the Eucharist given to the disciples, so were Christ’s natural body and blood too.

         I know it is denied that Christ gave his natural body, in such a sense, to the disciples, because of the glaring absurdity; and it is pleaded in that case, that our Saviour, in the institution, “said not one word of his natural body.” [See Brett’s Discourse on the Eucharist, pref. p. 16.  Answer to Plain Account, p. 41.  Johnson, Propit. Oblat. p. 33.]  But why then is it pretended, from the same institution, that he consigned his natural body to God as a sacrifice? [See Johnson, part i. pp. 64, 83. part ii. pp. 4, 6, 7, 9, 272, 273.]  If our Lord’s silence, as to his natural body, is an argument that it was not then given to the Disciples, the same silence is as good an argument to prove that it was not then given for them to God: or if any words of the institution prove that the natural body was then given for them, the same words will equally prove, that it was also then given to them and received by them; and orally too, according to the hypothesis which I am here examining.  To be short, upon the principles advanced to support the material sacrifice, it most evidently follows, either that the natural body was not given to God in the first Eucharist; or if it was, that it was literally given to the disciples also, and orally received by them.

         IV.  Another paradox relating to this head is “that our Saviour laid down his life, when, by a free act of his will, he did give his body and blood to God, in the Eucharist.” [Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part ii. p. 69.]  It might as justly and with as much propriety be said, that he was crucified at the table, or died at his last Supper.  But the author, I presume, being sensible, that where our Lord “laid down his life,” there he sacrificed himself; and having conceived that the sacrifice of himself should be performed in the Eucharist, and there only, he was under a kind of necessity of maintaining (pursuant to his other principles), that our Lord “laid down his life” in the Eucharist.  The love of Christ towards us is sometimes expressed by his “laying down his life” for us [John 10:15, 17–18.  1 John 3:16.]; and oftener by his dying [Rom. 5:6, 8; 14:9.  1 Cor. 8:11, 15:3.  2 Cor. 5:15.  1 Thess. 5:10.] for us: which (besides the general use of the phrase of “laying down one’s life”) is a more special argument with respect to this case, that the phrases are here equivalent.  Let it be said then, that Christ was crucified, slain, gave up the ghost, or resigned his spirit in the Eucharist: indeed, they may any of them be as reasonably asserted, as that he literally sacrificed himself in the Eucharist.

         Another learned writer, on the same side, chooses rather to say, that our Lord “laid down his life,” when he surrendered himself to the band of soldiers [Brett’s Answ. to Plain Account, pp. 62, 75.]; which was after his last Supper; but if any person would undertake to justify such new construction of the phrase, he should produce some example to shew, that any one has ever been said to have “laid down his life” without dying, or before he died.  And yet if any such example could be produced, it would not fully come up to this particular case, because our blessed Lord, at the very last moment, when he resigned his soul, had it in his power to rescue himself from death, as well as he had power to raise the dead.  His life no man could wrest from him at any time: neither was it taken till the very instant when he “laid it down of himself”, [John 10:18.] condescending to suspend his Divine power, or the exercise of it.  But I shall have another occasion to say more of this matter under the following chapter.

 

Chapter  IV

Pointing Out Some Excesses in Relation to the Sacrifice of the Cross.

         The sacrifice of the cross is so momentous an article of the Christian religion, that we have great reason to be jealous of any attempt either to overturn it, or to undermine it.  No such thing was ever formally attempted, that I know of, by any Divines of our Church, before 1718, when the second part of Unbloody Sacrifice appeared.  The author himself, in his first part, had owned the sacrifice of the cross more than once,* in words at least; though he then seems to have scrupled, in some measure, the use of the phrase, and to have been looking out for some evasive construction to put upon it.  Afterwards, in some places, he ordered mactation to be read for sacrifice, [See Johnson, part ii. p. 267.] or for oblation: and mactation at length became his usual expression for what we call the sacrifice of the cross.  Let us examine his reasons or motives for this so important a change in Christian theology.

         *[Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. pp. 12, 66, 68, 95, first edit.  Propit. Oblat. p. 106.  N.B.  Dr. Hickes all along owned the sacrifice of the cross. (Christ. Priesth. vol. i. p. 165.)  So likewise Mr. Leslie, and Mr. Scandret, pp. 4, 8, 157.  Dr. Brett also, as late as 1713, which appears by his Sermon on the Christian Altar, etc. pp. 18, 19.  Though he adopted Mr. Johnson’s new notions in or before 1720.  Discourse, etc. p. 39.]

         I.  His first scruple seems to have been what he had hinted in the first edition of his first part, where he says, “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 Melchizedekian priest; for he declares that he did this in the Eucharist. For this, says he, is my body given to God for you.” [Ibid. p. 95.]  He adds afterwards, “It cannot be proved,” that the Melchizedek in Genesis did offer bloody sacrifice. [See Johnson, part ii. p. 472.]  This pretense is very slight; because it cannot be proved, by anything said in Genesis, or any other part of Scripture, or by antiquity, universality, and consent, that Melchizedek sacrificed bread at all, or that he did anything more (so far as he is brought in for a type) than what amounted to the prefiguration of the grand sacrifice, and an instrumental conveyance of the blessings of it. [See above.]  However, as it is certain from Scripture, confirmed by antiquity, universality, and consent, that our Lord did offer himself a sacrifice on the cross, and that our Lord was not a priest of any other order but the order of Melchizedek, it most evidently follows, that such his sacrifice was so far Melchizedekian, was an act of that priesthood which was altogether Melchizedekian, and not Aaronic. [Heb. 7:11, 13–14, 16–17.]  In the strictest sense, no material sacrifice, bloody or unbloody, no active sacrifice at all (excepting the sacrifice of lauds), can be Melchizedekian; for Melchizedek, as a type, offered nothing but lauds to God, and blessings to Abraham under visible signs: but as our Lord’s priesthood was entirely Melchizedekian, and contained the atoning as well as benedictory part, it is manifest, that even the atonement, so considered, was Melchizedekian, as opposed to Aaronic.  In short then, it must not be said that our Lord’s sacrifice was bloody, and therefore not Melchizedekian; but it was Melchizedekian, though bloody,* because it was our Lord’s, who was of no other priestly order but the order of Melchizedek.  It is a poor thought of the Romanists, and it is well exposed by Dean Brevint, [Brevint, Depth and Mystery, etc. pp. 116–118.] that bread and wine are necessary to every act or exercise of the Melchizedekian priesthood: for as the notion is founded in error, so it terminates in absurdity.  Our Lord had no bread to offer on the cross: neither has he any bread or wine to offer in heaven, where he intercedes as a priest in virtue of his sacrifice once offered, and blesses as a priest, and “abideth a priest continually.” [Heb. 7:3.]  But I proceed.

         *[N.B.  It cannot be reasonably doubted but that Melchizedek offered bloody sacrifices, after the way of the ancient Patriarchs: only, that part of his priesthood was not mentioned; as there was no need to mention it, since the benedictory part of his priesthood was all that the type intended was concerned in, as I before intimated.]

         2.  The first and main scruple against the sacrifice of the cross being thus considered and confuted, there will be less difficulty with the rest, which are slighter, and which appear to have been invented purely to wait upon the other.  A second scruple is, that our Lord could not, while alive, offer (unless it were under symbols) his body and blood, as substantially separated; because it appears not that any blood flowed from him till the soldier pierced him; but it is probable, that the “nails so filled the orifices,” that “no blood could issue thence.” [Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, Pref. pp. 4, 5.]  I shall venture to leave this ingenious speculation with the reader.

         3.  Against the sacrifice of the cross, it is pleaded that to suppose it “is to render the sacrifice of Christ a bloody one indeed; so bloody, as that it cannot be reconciled to purity of any sort, till killing one’s self be esteemed a virtue.” [Ibid. part ii. p. 70.]  The same argument, as lately revived by another gentleman, runs thus: “He could not offer himself a sacrifice in any other manner than by symbols or representatives: for had he in any manner put himself to death, he might have been too justly accused of self-murder.”*  Sorry I am, that anything of this kind, though only in the way of argument, should drop from serious and religious persons: and I was in some doubt with myself, whether I could prudently or reverently repeat it, though in order only to confute it.  But who can any longer bear to have that most precious sacrifice, upon which all our hopes and all our comforts depend, treated in a manner far from becoming it?  Why must Christ’s laying down his life be so invidiously, so injuriously called putting himself to death?  To resign his life, or voluntarily to submit to death, is one thing: to put himself to death is quite another, differing as active disobedience from passive obedience.  But though he was passively obedient, in submitting to suffer, bleed, and die for us, it does not therefore follow, that he exercised no act of offering, or that he made no active sacrifice on the cross.  It was his own choice to submit to the will of his enemies, and his choosing so to suffer, so to be passive, for the honour of God and the salvation of men, was the divinest act and exercise of true piety and philanthropy.  It was active virtue, as all choice (whether to do or to suffer) is equally active, an act of the will, and a work.**  He thus actively offered on the cross his body, his blood, his soul, his life to God; choosing not to kill, but to be killed; not to slay, but to be slain: and by such act of submission and resignation to the will of God, he made himself a voluntary sacrifice, in his death, for the sins of mankind.  This is the plain doctrine of the Gospel, which every one that runs may read: and it is confirmed by as early, as universal, and as constant, a tradition for fifteen centuries or more, as any point of Christian doctrine whatsoever; from Barnabas, Clemens, and Ignatius, [Barnabas. Ep. ch. vii. p. 21.  Coteler. Clem. Rom. Epist. i. c. 49.  Ignatius ad Ephes. c. ii.] down even to Socinus of the sixteenth century.  It would be tedious to enter into the detail of authorities; neither can it, I presume, be necessary.  I shall only hint further, that from the third century and downwards, “altar of the cross”***  has been the current language: one certain argument, among many, that the sacrifice was supposed to be made upon the cross. And such also is the language of the Greek and Oriental liturgies.****

         *[Brett’s Answ. to Plain Acc. p. 66.  One might here make use of Tertullian’s argument against Marcion, (cited above) with a very little change.  “If our Lord made for himself a body of bread to be sacrificed, because he could not offer himself in any other manner than by symbols, then was bread given for the life of the world, and bread should have been crucified for us.”]

         **[Aquinas understood “active” and “passive” as well as most can pretend to: and he scrupled not to call our Lord’s passive obedience, a work: “Hoc ipsum opus, quod voluntarie passionem sustinuit,” etc.  See above.  The argument from the word “patient,” or “passive,” in this case, is only playing upon an equivocal name, and committing a fallacy.]

         ***[Orig. tom. ii. p. 220. cp. 187, 83, 362. ed. Bened.  Eusebius de Laud. Constant. 765. ed. Cant.  Hieronym. tom. ii. part. 2. 167. tom. iii. 384. ed. Bened.  Ambrosius, tom. i. 995, 1002. tom. ii. 1054. ed. Bened.  Chrysostom, tom. ii. 403, 404. ed. Bened. in Heb. 839.  Augustinus, tom. iv. 211, 1565. tom. v. Append. 273. tom. viii. 820.  Leo Magn. tom. i. 251, 261, 264, 267, 276, 293.  Quen. Venant. Fortunat. Hymn. de Pass. Christi, p. 695.]

         ****[Jacob. Liturg. p. 35.  Fabric. Basil. Liturg. Copt. p. 24.  Renaud. Gregorii Liturg. Copt. 36. 37. cp. 46.  Basilii Liturg. Alex. p. 83.  Gregorii Liturg. pp. 120, 121, 123.  Ordo Commun. Syr. Jacob. p. 22.]

         It is very wrong to suggest that our Lord was merely passive in laying down his life, because nature was spent, and because he had been half dead before, and the like [Johnson, part ii. pp. 69, 70.]; as if any violence of death could have wrested his soul from him, the Lord of life, as it may ours.  Our older and better divinity may be seen in the learned and judicious Bishop Bilson, who confirmed the same both by Scripture and Fathers.  It ran thus: “The conjunction of the human nature with the Divine, in the person of Christ, was so fast and sure, that neither sin, death, nor hell, assaulting our Saviour, could make any separation, no not of his body: but he himself, of his own accord, must put off his earthly tabernacle, that dying for a season, he might conquer death forever.  And so the laying down his life was no imposed punishment, nor forcible invasion of death upon him, but a voluntary sacrifice for sin, rendered unto God for our sakes.” [Bishop Bilson, Full Redemption, etc. p. 8.]  This doctrine Bishop Bilson defended against some rigid Calvinists of his time, who maintained the contrary [Ibid. p. 229.] for the support of some other false principles. But I return.

         The author of Unbloody Sacrifice, though he had argued before, several ways, against the sacrifice of the cross, yet retreated at length to this: “I do not, nor ever did deny, that Christ offered himself on the cross; but I declare, I cannot prove it from Scripture; so that if it be true, I leave it to be proved by tradition.” [Johnson, Saxon Laws, vol. i. pref. p. 58.]  How hard of belief in this high article, when it is undeniable that Scripture (taken in the sense of the Fathers of the first, second, and following centuries) does prove it; and when, in other cases, he conceived, that that man ought to suspect his own judgment and orthodoxy, whose opinions sink below the standard of the second age after Christ.” [Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part. i. p. 212, alias 215.]  But we need not Fathers in this point, nor indeed anything but Scripture texts, and unprejudiced reason.

         The prophet Isaiah represents our Lord as “wounded for our transgressions,” and “bruised for our iniquities,” and “making his soul an offering for sin.” [Isa. 53:5, 10.]  Where but on the cross?  Not at his last Supper, where he was neither wounded nor bruised, except it were in effigy; nor offered his soul, so much as in effigy, whether we interpret it of soul or of life.  His “pouring out his soul unto death” (not his pouring out wine, or pouring out promises or engagements) is by the same prophet made the one thing considerable. [Isa. 53:12.]

         Where our Lord “bare our sins” (a sacrificial phrase), there most certainly he made his sacrifice: now St. Peter expressly tells us, that “he bare our sins in his own body on the tree” [1 Peter 2:24.  Compare Isa. 53:4, 6, 11–12.]; not in his sacramental body, or at the Communion table.  Besides that it is manifest from the same text, that he had not made the expiatory sacrifice in the Eucharist: for if he had, he could have had none of our sins to bear in his body on the cross; neither indeed would his death have been necessary to our redemption, being superseded by the eucharistic remission, and by the atonement then made.

         Where peace was purchased, where redemption and reconciliation were perfected, there may we look for the sacrifice of peace, redemption, and reconcilement.  Now St. Paul says plainly, that he “made peace through the blood of his cross” (not through the blood of his holy table, whether sacramental or natural) “to reconcile all things,” [Col. 1:20.] etc.  Again, “we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son,” [Rom. 5:10.] and reconciled “unto God by the cross” [Eph. 2:26.]: not by the Eucharist of his Son, not by the Communion table.  We were “redeemed by his blood” [Revel. 5:9.]; and “made nigh by the blood of Christ,” [Eph. 2:13.] and “sanctified also by his blood” [Heb. 13:12, 10:29, 9:12–14.]: not in the Eucharist, where no blood was shed, except it were in effigy; neither will such sacramental shedding answer St. Paul’s meaning, where he says that “without shedding of blood there is no remission.” [Heb. 9:22.]  Again, it is said, Christ “appeared to put away sin by the SACRIFICE of HIMSELF: and as it is appointed unto men ONCE TO DIE – so Christ was ONCE OFFERED to bear the sins of many,” [Ibid. 27–28.] etc.  Where it is plain, that he was to put away sin by sacrificing himself, and that, by dying: as appears by the similitude immediately following; “As it is appointed unto men once to die, so Christ was once offered,” viz. in his death: otherwise the parallel will not answer.  It is in vain to say, that the offering was previous to his bearing our sins: for the prophet Isaiah expounds his “making his soul an offering for sin,” by his “pouring out his soul unto death”. [Isa. 53:10, 12.]  So that his being offered to bear, must mean, that he was offered on the cross, where he was to pour out his soul, that upon the same cross he might bear our sins. etc.

         More might be added, but I forbear to proceed further in so plain a point, so firmly grounded on Scripture, and so fully established by antiquity, universality, and consent; consent of the Christian churches from the beginning down to this day.

         4. It was going great lengths to say, “I must humbly declare my opinion, that it is impossible to establish the doctrine of Christ’s body and blood being a real sacrifice, by any other arguments but those by which we prove the Eucharist to have been instituted a sacrifice by our blessed Saviour.” [Johnson, Saxon Laws, pref. p. 54.  Unbloody Sacrifice, part ii, pref. pp. 1, 2.]  Whatever might be the fate of this particular much disputed notion of the eucharistic sacrifice, one thing is certain, and will be readily allowed by every considerate man, that the general and unquestionable doctrine of the real sacrifice ought never to be put upon a level with it: neither ought it to have been so much as suggested, that there is any ground for so strange a comparison.  It was obliging Socinians too far, to raise any doubt or question about the certainty of the sacrifice of the cross: but to throw out broad innuendoes besides, that it stands upon no better, or no other foundation, than the material sacrifice, the material and expiatory sacrifice of the Eucharist; what is it but betraying the Christian cause into the hands of the adversaries?  For if they may reasonably urge (or cannot reasonably be confuted, if they do urge) that such material and expiatory sacrifice is a novelty of yesterday, scarce thought on before the dark ages of superstition, which made use of material incense for like purposes; scarce ever seriously maintained by any of the West before the sixteenth century, and then only by the Romanists; never admitted, in either part, by Protestants before the seventeenth century, nor then by many of them; never taught (as now taught) before the eighteenth century, and then by a single writer only, for some time: I say, if the Socinians may reasonably urge the premises, the conclusion which they aim at is given them into their hands: and so at length this indiscreet zeal for an imaginary sacrifice of the Eucharist (not capable of support) can serve only to perplex, darken, or destroy, the real one of the cross. [The chief advocate for the new system says, “It is no small satisfaction to me, that the sacrifice of the Eucharist, and the personal sacrifice of Christ, do rest upon the same foundation, and stand or fall together.”  Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part ii. pref. pp. 1, 2.  To which it is sufficient to say, God forbid!  The personal sacrifice of Christ stands upon the rock of ages: the other (in his sense of it) is built upon the sand.]

         I thought to go on to two chapters further, pointing out more excesses and inconsistencies of the new scheme.  There is one which particularly deserved to be mentioned; the precarious consequence drawn from our Lord’s supposed sacrifice in the first Eucharist to our sacrifice in the rest, built only upon this, that we are to do what Christ did [Johnson’s Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. pp. 50, 91, alias 51, 94.  Johnson, part ii. p. 10.]: an argument, which, if it proves anything, proves that we are to do all that Christ is supposed to have done by way of sacrifice; that is, to sacrifice his sacramental body and his natural also (which is absurd), or else to sacrifice ourselves under symbols, as our Lord sacrificed himself, which will not serve the purpose of the material scheme.  One way the argument proves too much, and the other way too little; and so neither way will it answer the end designed. I am aware, that some will tell us what the argument shall prove, and what it shall not prove.*  But who will give a disputant leave to draw consequences arbitrarily, not regulated by the premises, but by an hypothesis, which itself wants to be regulated by reason and truth?

         *[Johnson, part i. pp. 96, 122, alias 99, 126.  Dr. Brett on Liturgies, p. 135.  N.B.  The sum of what is pleaded on that side, when carefully examined, will be found to amount only to this: we are to do what Christ did, so far as serves the new system: but we are not to do what Christ did, so far as disserves it.  “Do this” shall be an argument, when and where it makes for it: “do this” shall be no argument, when or where it makes against it.  It is observable, that the words “this do,” in the institution, come after the words “take, eat, this is my body,” and therefore manifestly relate, not merely to the sacerdotal ministration, but to the whole action or actions both of priest and people.  The blessing, the breaking, the pouring out, the distributing, the receiving, the eating, and the drinking, are all comprehended in the words “this do.”  All those actions are shewing forth the Lord’s death (1 Cor. 11:26), for a remembrance or memorial of him.]

         I have not here room to enter further into this matter: these papers are already drawn out into a length beyond what I at first suspected.  I hope my readers will excuse my stopping short in this fourth chapter, and saving both myself and them the trouble (perhaps unnecessary trouble) of two more.  It is of use in any controverted points, to observe what exit they are found to have, when pursued to the utmost.  There were sufficient reasons before against a material sacrifice, considered in its best light, as purely gratulatory, or eucharistic: and there were more and stronger against the same considered as expiatory, or propitiatory; reasons, I mean, from Scripture and antiquity, and from the nature of things: but the managers for the material cause have now lately furnished us with a new argument against it, by sheaving us, that, after all that can be done for it, it has really no exit, or such as is worse than none: while it terminates in various inconsistencies and incongruities; and not only so, but is contradictory also to sound doctrine, particularly to the momentous doctrine of the sacrifice of the cross.

 

A brief Analysis of Mr. Johnson’s System., shewing what it is, and by what Steps he might be led into it.

         1.  The first thing in intention, last in execution, was to prove, that the Gospel ministers are proper priests.

         2.  Proper priests must have a proper sacrifice: therefore some medium was to be thought on, to prove a proper sacrifice, particularly in the Eucharist.

         3.  A prevailing notion, or vulgar prejudice, had spread among many, for a century or more, that no sacrifice could he proper, but a material one: therefore pains were to be taken to prove the Eucharist a material sacrifice.

         4.  But as material sacrifice carried no appearance of dignity in it, looking too low and mean for an evangelical priesthood to stand upon; therefore ways and means were to be used to raise some esteem of it: spiritual sacrifice was to be depreciated, and material to be magnified.  Hence, as it seems, arose the thought of enriching the elements with the Spirit; borrowing from the sacramental part of the Eucharist, to augment and advance the sacrificial.  And now the scheme appeared with a better face.

         5.  Nevertheless, if our Lord in the original Eucharist did not sacrifice the elements, it could not reasonably be supposed that we do it now, and so things would not tally: therefore it was found necessary to assert, that he also sacrificed the elements, as his sacramental body; and thereupon reasons and authorities were to be searched out for that purpose.

         6.  Still there was a weighty objection remaining, viz. that Scripture speaks often of Christ’s offering himself, but never once of his offering in sacrifice the symbols: to remove which difficulty, it was thought best to say, that he offered himself in the Eucharist, but by and with the symbols.  An afterthought, and not well comporting with former parts of the scheme.

         7.  But there was still another difficulty, a very great one; namely, that our Lord, according to the accounts of the New Testament, sacrificed himself but once [Propit. Oblat. p. 97.]: therefore, either he did it not in the Eucharist, or not upon the cross.  To remove this difficulty, it seems to have been resolved to give up the sacrifice of the cross, and to retain only the sacrifice of the Eucharist: and so the scheme was complete.

         Having thus given a sketch of the system in the analytical way, it may now be easy to throw it into the synthetic, thus:

         1.  Christ our Lord made a personal sacrifice of himself once; either in the Eucharist or on the cross.

         2.  It cannot be proved to have been on the cross, but there are divers reasons against the supposition; therefore it must have been in the Eucharist.

         3.  He sacrificed himself in the Eucharist, under symbols, sacrificing the symbols together with himself: otherwise we could have no pretense now for sacrificing the same symbols.

         4.  The Christian Church, after his example, sacrifices the symbols, but not him.

         5.  Therefore the Church has a material sacrifice.

         6.  Therefore the Church offers a proper sacrifice.

         7.  Therefore the Gospel ministers are proper priests, sacrificing priests: which was to be proved.

         Now my humble opinion upon the whole is, that if the learned author had taken spiritual sacrifice for his medium, instead of material, he might not only have avoided many perplexities, and no small number of mistakes, but might also have come at his main point justly and regularly, in conformity with Scripture and antiquity.  He might have proved that Christian ministers are priests in as high and as proper a sense as any before them have been (Christ only excepted) authorized to stand and minister between God and his people, and to bless in God’s name, and to execute all other sacerdotal functions, but in a more spiritual and heavenly way than other priests had done: which detracts not at all from the propriety of the Christian priesthood, but adds very much to its value and excellency, and shews it to be of superior dignity to any real or pretended priesthood, either of Jews or Pagans.

 

A distinct summary View of the several Oblations in the Eucharist, previous to Consecration or subsequent.

         What is previous, goes under the name of Ante-oblation: what is subsequent, falls under the name of Post-oblation.

I.  Of the Ante-oblation.

         The ante-oblation has three parts, or three views, as here follows:

         1.  There is a presenting to God alms for the poor, and oblations for the use of the Church.  The material things are gifts to men: the benevolent act, or work, is a gift, or sacrifice unto God.  St. Paul points out this distinction where he teaches, “To do good and to communicate” are “such sacrifices” as “God is well pleased with.”*  The benevolent services are the sacrifice; not the material money, or goods.  This distinction is further confirmed by the common custom of speech; which shews what the common ideas are.  Alms (that is, alms deeds) make an atonement for sin: a true and a proper expression, understanding atonement in a qualified sense.  But who would say, that money makes an atonement?  By bounty and charity God is appeased: the proposition is true, and the expression proper.  But can we say, that by silver and gold God is appeased?  No, certainly.  And why cannot we?  Because it would be confounding ideas: for, even in common language, expressive of the common ideas, the service is the gift to God, not the material thing.

         *[Heb. 13:16.  The like distinction is clearly laid down in Justin Martyr. Apol. ii. p. 60, ed. Paris, 1636.  __ _Ļ’ _______ ___ _________ ________, __ Ļ___ __Ļ____, ___’ _______ ___ ____ _________ Ļ_________, ______ __ ___________ _____ ___ _____ Ļ__Ļ__ ___ ______ Ļ__Ļ___.]

         2.  There is in the Eucharist a presenting to God (virtually at least) an acknowledgment of God’s being Creator and Giver of all good things; as Irenaeus intimates. [Iren. lib. iv. cap. 18. p. 251.]  Tertullian extends it to both Sacraments [Tertull. contr. Marc. lib. i. cap. 14, 23.]: inasmuch as the religious use of water in Baptism carries in it a tacit acknowledgment that water is a creature of God.

         3.  There is also a presenting of the elements to God for consecration: which is common to both Sacraments.  For in Baptism the waters are so presented, and for the same or like spiritual purposes.

 

II.  Of the Post-Oblation.

         The post-oblation, otherwise called commemoration, may likewise be considered under three views, or as containing three parts.

         1.  The first is, the offering to view, viz. of God, angels, and men, under certain symbols, the death, passion, or sacrifice of Christ.  We do the like (not precisely the same) in Baptism also: for there we represent and commemorate mentally, vocally, and manually (in mind, and by mouth, and by significant actions), the death and burial of Christ our Lord.

         2.  The second is, the offering, as it were, to Divine consideration, with our praises and thanksgivings, Christ and his sacrifice, pleading the merit of it, in behalf of ourselves and others.  We do something near akin to this in Baptism likewise, pleading the same sacrifice of atonement, with the merits thereof, in behalf of the persons baptized; offering the same to Divine consideration.

         3.  The third is, the offering up Christ’s mystical body, the Church, or ourselves a part of it,* as an holy, lively, reasonable sacrifice unto God: a sacrifice represented by the outward signs, and conveyed, as it were, under the symbols of bread and wine.

         *[Fulgentius’s doctrine on this head is well worth the noting, as making the Church to be the sacrifice offered, and likewise as interpreting the illapse of the Spirit, conformably, of the Spirit’s sanctifying that mystical body, viz. the Church.  He flourished about 510, and is of greater antiquity and authority than most of the Greek, Latin, or Oriental liturgies now extant.  “Quum ergo sancti Spiritus ad sanctificandum totius Ecclesiae sacrificium postulatur adventus, nihil aliud postulari mihi videtur, nisi ut per gratiam salutarem in corpore Christi (quod est Ecclesia) caritatis unitas jugiter indisrupta servetur. ... Dum itaque Ecclesia Spiritum sanctum sibi caelitus postulat mitti, donum sibi caritatis et unanimitatis postulat a Deo conferri.  Quando autem congruentius quam ad consecrandum sacrificium corporis Christi sancta Ecclesia (quae corpus est Christi) Spiritus sancti deposcat adventum? quae ipsum caput suum secundum carnem de Spiritu sancto noverit natum. ... Hoc ergo factum est caritate divina, ut ex ipso Spiritu corpus illius capitis esset renatum, de quo ipsum caput est natum. ... Haec itaque spiritalis aedificatio corporis Christi, quae fit in caritate, (cum scilicet secundum B.  Petri sermonem, lapides vivi aedificantur in domum spiritalem, in sacerdotium sanctum, offerentes spiritales hostias, acceptabiles, Deo per Jesum Christum) nunquam opportunius petitur, quam quum ab ipso Christi corpore (quod est Ecclesia) in sacramento panis et calicis ipsum Christi corpus et sanguis offertur.  Calix enim quem bibimus,etc.  1 Cor. 10:16–17.  Fulgent. ad Monim. lib. ii. pp. 34–37. ed. Paris.  Cp. Fragment. p. 641.]

         This third article of the post-oblation is seen also in Baptism: for we are therein supposed to be dedicated, consecrated, devoted, through Christ, to God.  On which account Baptism has been looked upon as a kind of sacrifice among the ancients.*

         *[Cum venis ad gratiam Baptismi, vitulum obtulisti, quia in mortem Christi baptizaris. Origen. in Levit. Hom. ii. p. 191. ed. Bened.  “Holocausto dominicae passionis, quod eo tempore offert quisque pro peccatis suis, quo ejusdem passionis fide dedicatur, et Christianorum fidelium nomine baptizatus imbuitur. Augustin. ad Rom. Expos. cap. xix. p. 937. ed. Bened.  “Ipse homo, Dei nomini consecratus, et Deo devotus, in quantum mundo moritur ut Deo vivat, sacrificium est. Augustin. de Civit. Dei, lib. x. cap. 6. p. 242.]

         Nevertheless, the Sacrament of the Eucharist has more particularly obtained the name of sacrifice: partly, on account of the offerings to church and poor in the ante-oblation, which are peculiar to that Sacrament; and partly, on account of the commemorated sacrifice in the post-oblation.  For though Baptism commemorates the death and burial, and indirectly the grand sacrifice; yet it does not so precisely, formally, and directly represent or commemorate the sacrifice of the cross, as the Eucharist does.

 

The Sacramental Part of the Eucharist Explained

A Charge Delivered In Part to the Clergy of Middlesex

At the Easter Visitation, 1739.

Reverend Brethren,

         In a former discourse, [The Christian Sacrifice explained, in the preceding Charge.] upon the like occasion, I endeavoured to explain the sacrificial part of the Eucharist more minutely than I had before done, for the removing of scruples and the obviating mistakes.  I would now do something of like kind with respect to the sacramental part of the same, so far as it appears to be affected by the sacrificial; that so both parts may aptly suit with each other, and hang naturally together.  As truth is uniform, so just notions of one part will of course tend to preserve just ideas of the other part also: and as error is apt to lead to error, so any erroneous tenets there, will naturally bring in erroneous positions here.

         It is matter of fact, that for the sake of advancing a new kind of sacrifice, new doctrines have been offered, time after time, with regard even to the sacramental part of the Eucharist: which in truth is as much superior to the sacrificial, as God’s part in that holy rite is superior to man’s; and which therefore calls for our more especial caution and circumspection.

         Great stress has, by some amongst us since 1702, been laid upon the invocation and illapse of the Holy Ghost upon the elements: not barely to make them sacred signs and pledges, or exhibitive symbols of Christ’s body and blood to every faithful communicant (which might reasonably be admitted), but even to make them the very body, or verily the body of Christ: not the natural body, but another true body, called a spiritual body, consisting, as is presumed, of elements changed in their inward qualities, and replenished either with the Holy Spirit himself, or with the graces, or virtues, or energies of the Spirit;* supposed to be intrinsic to them, inherent in them, permanent with them, and received both by worthy and unworthy communicants.  It is said, that the “Holy Spirit being invited and called down by the prayer of the priest (according to the ancients) descended upon the bread and wine on the altar, and enriched them with all the virtues and graces with which the personal body and blood of Christ did abound, and so made them in this, and perhaps in a yet more mysterious and incomprehensible manner, to be verily the body and blood of Christ; as the Holy Ghost did formerly, come upon the blessed Virgin, and formed in her womb the personal body and blood of Christ. [Grabe’s Defence of the Greek Church, p. 88.]  That the consecrated symbols are sanctified, and altered, if not in their substance, yet in their internal qualities, – and that the eucharistic symbols themselves are verily made, in a mysterious manner, the body and blood of our crucified Saviour. [Grabe’s Defence of the Greek Church, pp. 75, 87.  Cp. pp. 20, 35, 90, 91.]  That this sacramental flesh and blood of Christ is taken by a corporeal eating and drinking of the unworthy, as well as worthy, communicants: of these, namely, to their justification and eternal salvation both of flesh and spirit; but of those to their condemnation and destruction of soul and body.”**

         *[Spirit u Sancto, qui, ad invocationero sacerdotis descendens, panem sanctificat, et (mini divina ac vivifica virtute corporis et sanguinis Christi enndem replet. . . . Ita ut Eucharistia duabus constet rebus, terrena, quae est materia pftnis, et caelesti, quae est gratia ac virtus Spiritus Sancti pani indita. . . Divina illius virtus et gratia pani communicata ac inhaerens, uti jam paucis probabo.’ Grabe. Ad Iren. lib. iv. cap. 34. pp. 327, 328.  In the same year, Dr. Allix, who saw deeper, condemned those notions, in very plain terms, while speaking of the modern Greeks, whose tenets those are.  “Ad tales autem miraculosos effectus, quos jactant tam Graeci quam Latini, crelendos, aliquid nobis videtur deesse, scil. Christi promissio, aut mandatum. De his miraculis fama orta videtur ex absurda quadam crednlitate, Spiri turn Sanctrm in elementorum naturam supernaturalem quandam vim infundere.’ Allix. in notis ad Nectarium, p. 429. N.B. The question of inherent virtues had been thoroughly discussed by the best-learned Protestants, and the notion generally exploded, here and abroad, long before Dr. Grabe undertook (inadvertently perhaps, or however unadvisedly) to revive it.  [Grabium cujus ingenium novarum et portentosarum opinionum tenax nemini ignotum est. Deyling. Observat. Miscell. p. 177.  “Nec tamen id dissimulamus, ipsuna, antequam ad Anglos abiret, ad ecclesia,rn Romanam transire omnino voluisse, et quidem bane praecipue oh rationem, quod crediderat, successionem episcopatus ministeriique apostolici ea sola inveniri. Pfaffius, p. 500.]]

         **[Grabe, ibid. p. 87.  N.B.  The Leipsic Acts, in their censure upon that posthumous piece, first published in 1721, have left this note: “Ex his vero patet, quod licet in articulo de coena, alienam a pontificiorum transubstantiatione sententiam habuerit Grabius, tamen in eodem ab Anglicana etiam ... Ecclesia haud parum discrepaverit. Act Lips. p. 281. A.D. 1722.]

         Whoever looks into Scripture, or genuine antiquity, will there find but very little ground or colour for these or the like speculations; which appear rather to have been borrowed from Damascen of the eighth century, or from the more modern Greeks, or the Pseudo-primitive liturgies.  There was indeed, as early as the second century, some mention made of the descent of the Holy Ghost in Baptism [See my Review, above.]: and there was also a prevailing notion of some concurrence of the Holy Spirit with water, to the conception and birth of a Christian; which concurrence, by way of illustration, or to render the idea of it more lively and affecting, was sometimes compared to a conjugal union.*  But it was never understood, that such similitudes were to be scanned with a scrupulous exactness; or that every affecting or popular expression should he strained with the utmost rigour: for that would be using the ancient writers in much such a way as the Anthropomorphites and others have interpreted Scripture, contrary to the true meaning and intent of it.  The Fathers very well knew how to distinguish between a power adsistant to, or concurrent with the element,** and a power infused into it, or lodged in it: and they were well aware of the difference between the virtue of Baptism (meaning the whole solemnity, in which God bears a part [See my Review, above.]) and the inherent virtue of the consecrated water, which means quite another thing, and is a late invention of dark and ignorant ages.***

         *[Tertullian. de Baptismo. Chrysostom. in Ephes. Hom. xx. p. 147.  Leo I. Serm. 23, 24, pp. 155, 160.  Quesnell. Pseud-Ambros. de Myst. cap. lix. p. 243.  See more testimonies in Vossius, Opp. tom. vi. pp. 233, 274.  Cp. Albertinus, pp. 465, 466, and my Appendix, pp. 498, 499.]

         **[_____ ___ _ ________, __’ ______ __, ____, ___ Ļ_________ ___ ___ ________ ___ _________ ____________, ___ __ ________ ___ _________ ____________.  Compare Review, above.]

         ***[Sacramenta continere gratiam nunquam olim dictum: itaque Thomas, parte tertia quaestionis sexagesimae secundae, articulo tertio, non potuit altius arcessere quam ab Hugone de Sancto Victore. Chamier. Panstrat. tom. iv. p. 52.  N.B.  Hugo flourished about A. D. 1120, [or 1130.]  [“Hugo de S. Victore dicit, quod Sacramentum ex sanctificatione invisibilem gratiam continet. Aquin. par. 3. q. 62. art. 3. p. 138.  “Sacramentum est corporale vel materiale elementum ... ex sanctificatione continens invisibilem et spiritualem gratiam. Hugo de S. Vict. t. iii. de Sacramentis, par. 9. c. 1. p. 405.  “Dona enim gratiae spiritualia quasi quaedam invisibilia antidota sunt, quae dum in sacramentis visibilibus, quasi quibusdam vasculis, homini porriguntur, quid aliud quam ex patenti specie virtus occulta ostenditur?”  p. 406. ed. Colon. 1617.]]

         As to the Eucharist, for the three first centuries, and part of the fourth, nothing at all was said, so far as appears, of any descent of the third Person upon the elements [See my Review, above.]; nothing of his forming them into Christ’s body; no, nor of his forming the natural body in the womb: but the ancients interpreted Luke 1:35, of our Lord’s own Divine Spirit, namely, of the Logos, and supposed that the same Logos formed for himself a body in the womb.*  So little foundation is there, within the three first and purest ages, for the pretended similitude between the Holy Ghost’s forming the natural body in the womb, and his forming the spiritual body in the Eucharist. [[Abp. Cranmer, pp. 338, 340, 341, 355.]]  The similitude made use of anciently with respect to the Eucharist, was that of the incarnation, [Justin. Apol. xcvi. Dial. p. 290.  Compare my Doctrinal Use, etc. p. 405, and Review, above, and Albertinus, pp. 296, 664.] intended only in a confuse, general way, and not for any rigorous exactness.  For like as our Lord, in his incarnation, made and fitted for himself a natural body to dwell in; so, in regard to the Eucharist, he has appointed and fitted for himself a symbolical body to concur with, in the distributing his graces and blessings to the faithful receivers.  As to the third Person, his more immediate presence and energy was by the ancients assigned to Baptism, correspondently to the figure of the conjugal union, as before hinted: while to the Eucharist was assigned the more immediate presence and energy of the Logos, as the figure of the incarnation, made use of in that case, justly required.  It would be a kind of solecism in ancient language, to speak of the Holy Ghost in this matter, as some late writers have done; because it would be confounding the analogy which the truly ancient Doctors went upon in their doctrine of the two Sacraments.  The very learned and judicious Bishop Bull gives a reasonable account of what was taught concerning the Eucharist in the early days of Justin and Irenaeus:

         *[Hernias, lib. iii. Simil. 5.  Just. Apol. i. p. 54.  Dial. 354.  Irenaeus, lib. v. cap. 1.. p. 293.  Clem. Alex. p. 654.  Tertullian, contr. Prax. cap. xxvi. de Carn. Christi, p. 18.  Hippolytus, contr. Noet. cap. iv. p. 9. cap. xvii. p. 18.  Novatian, cap. xix. [xxiv.]  Cyprian, de Idol. Vault. p. 228.  Lactant. lib. iv. cap. 12.  Hilarius, de Trim 1011, 1044, 1047.  Gregorius Boeticus, apud Ambros. tom. ii. pp. 354, 356, [____Ļ__ ___ __ ____ ______ ______ __ ______, ____ ___ _____ ____ ___ ___ _____ ______ ________.  Chrysost. in 1 Cor. Hom. 24. p. 213.]]

         “By or upon the sacerdotal benediction, the Spirit of Christ, or a Divine virtue from Christ, descends upon the elements, and accompanies them to all worthy communicants: and therefore they are said to be, and are, the body and blood of Christ, the same Divinity which is hypostatically united to the body of Christ in heaven, being virtually united to the elements of bread and wine.”*  Here it is observable, that by Spirit of Christ Bishop Bull could not mean the third Person, but the Logos,** which only is hypostatically united to the humanity of Christ; and that that Spirit is not said to reside in the elements, but to accompany them, and to the worthy only: so that the virtual union can amount only to an union of concurrence (not of infusion or inherence), whereby Christ is conceived to concur with the elements, in the due use of them to produce the effects in persons fitly disposed.  All which is true and ancient doctrine.

         *[Bull’s Answer to the Bishop of Meaux, pp. 21, 22.  How different Bishop Bull’s account is from Dr. Grabe’s in his notes on Irenaeus, will be obvious to every one who will be at the pains to compare them: though at the same time Bishop Bull very respectfully refers to Dr. Grabe (p. 23) for clearing the point against the Romanists.  [On earth.  Which also seems to be the meaning of all the ancient Liturgies, in which it is prayed, that God would send down his Spirit upon the bread and wine in the Eucharist, p. 22, alias 246.  Cp. Spalatens. l. v. c. 6. p. 85.  Salinas. p. 395.]]

         **[How common and familiar such use of the name Spirit, or Holy Spirit, anciently was, may be understood from the interpretation of Luke 1:35, as before mentioned, and from the testimonies collected to that purpose by learned men.  Grotius in Marc. ii. 8.  Bull. Defens. Fid. Nic. cap. ii. sect. 5.  Constant. in. Hilar. praefat. p. 19.]

         In the fourth century, some illapse* of the third Person upon the elements was commonly taught, and that justly, provided it be but as justly understood.  Not so as to make the sacramental body a compound of element and spirit, after the way of the modern Greeks; nor so as to make the third Person the proper food of the Eucharist, or the “res Sacramenti”; for the Logos was always considered as the food there spiritually given and received;** yea it was the incarnate Logos,*** and therein stands our mystical union with Christ as improved and strengthened in that Sacrament.  But the work of the Holy Ghost upon the elements**** was to translate or change them from common to sacred, from elements to sacraments, from their natural state and condition to supernatural ends and uses, that they might become holy signs, certain pledges, or exhibitive symbols of our Lord’s own natural body and blood in a mystical and spiritual way.  Not that any change was presumed, either as to the substance or the inward qualities of the elements, but only as to their outward state, condition, uses, or offices.  For like as when a commoner is advanced into a peer, or a subject into a prince, or an house into a church, or a laic into a priest or prelate, there is a change of outward state, condition, circumstances, and there are new uses and offices, new prerogatives, new glories, but no change of substance, no, nor of inward qualities implied: such also is the case (only in a more eminent degree) with respect to the elements of the Eucharist; when they are consecrated by the priest, when they are sanctified by the Holy Ghost, when they are rendered relatively holy, when they are transferred from common to sacred, [“Accedat verbum ad elementum, et fit Sacramentum.”  Augustin. in Joann. Tract. 80.] when they are exalted from mean and low uses, in comparison, to the highest and holiest purposes that such poor things could ever be advanced to. Such a change, or transmutation, as I have now mentioned, frequently occurs in the primitive writers: more than this (I am competently assured) will not be found in any certain and undoubted monuments of Catholic writers, within the first six centuries.*****

         *[The illapse of the second Person was prayed for likewise.  “Sacerdotes quoque qui dant baptismum, et ad Eucharistiam Domini imprecantur adventum, faciunt oleum chrismatis, manum imponunt.”  Hieron. in Sophon. iii. p. 1673.  “Crede adesse Dominum Jesum, invocatum precibus sacerdotum.”  Pseud. Ambr. de iis qui mysteriis initiantur. c. 5.  But vid. Missal. Gallican. in Pfaffio 383.  This relates to baptism.  The whole Trinity sometimes invoked.  Vid. Justin. Apol. 96.  Cyrill. Mystag. I. t. vii. p. 308.  Cp. Pfaffius, 384, 385, 399.  “Improprie ergo, in Sacramentis participandis, verbo carne vesci dicimur, cum carne tantum per verbum facta vivificante vescamur.  Sed nec ipsam carnem proprie sumimus, quae in pane sanctificato sub sacramento nobis communicatur.”  Salmasius, contra Grot. p. 156.]

         **[Irenaeus, lib. iv. cap. 38. p. 284.  Clemens Alex. 123, 125, 126, 177, 178.  Tertullian. de Orat. cap. 6.  De Resurr. Carn. cap. 38.  Origen. in Levit. Hom. xvi. p. 266. in Matt. p. 254.  Novat. cap. 14. 16.  Hilarius de Trin. lib. viii. p. 954.  Nazianzen, Orat. iii. p. 70.]

         ***[Tertullian. de Resurr. Carn. cap. 37.  Origen. in Matt. p. 254.  Augustin. in Psalm 33. p. 211. cxx. p. 1381.  Compare Jewel’s Answer to Hard. art. viii. p. 293, and Albertinus, pp. 341, 758.]

         ****[[“1. Papists say, the Holy Ghost transubstantiates the elements.  2. Lutherans, that he unites them with the natural body locally present.  3. Modern Greeks, that he fills them with himself, or with his grace or energy.  4. Ancients, that he makes them exhibitive symbols of Christ’s body locally absent, and of all the benefits accruing from it, conveying them to the communicants in the use of the symbols.  They are changed – They have a dignity and preeminence which they had not before – They are not now common bread or common wine, but the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ.  A holy mystery – a covenant – a testimony – a perfect seal and sufficient warrant of God’s promises,” etc.  Jewel, Treatise of the Sacraments, p. 274. ed. 1611.  “Consecratio nullam pani et vino mutationem inducit nisi ut ex his fiat per eam sacramentum.  Fides deinde sacramentum digne accipientis facit ut spiritaliter illud percipiat: id est, ut spiritali ejus virtuti communicet, et Spiritus Dei particeps existat.  Nec huic veritati obstat, quod Patres saepe _______ _____ appellent, etc.  Non enim intelligunt eam esse panis virtutem, aut pani inesse, sed quia cum pane simul accipitur ab eo qui digne eam accipit.”  Salmasius, p. 429.]]

         *****[Compare Jewel’s Def. of Apol. part ii. pp. 243, 244.  Albertinus, pp. 425, 509.  Cosin. Histor. Transubst. pp. 109, 113, 124.  Covet. Account of Gr. Church, pp. 47, 53, etc. 67, 68, 72.  [“When Gelasius speaks of the going of the sacraments into the divine substance, he meaneth not that the substances of the sacraments go into the substance of God, but that in the action of that mystery, to them that worthily receive the sacraments, to them they be turned into the Divine substance, through the working of the Holy Ghost, who maketh the godly receivers to be partakers of the Divine nature and substance.”  Crammer, 356. cp. 358.  N.B.  The outward change as to relative holiness, belongs to the elements, but the inward change to the persons only.]]

         So long as symbolical language was well remembered and rightly understood, and men knew how to distinguish between figure and verity, between signs and things: while due care and judgment was made use of, to interpret the literal expressions of Scripture and Fathers literally, and figurative expressions according to the figure: I say, while these things were so, there could be no room for imagining any change in the elements, either as to substance or internal qualities, nor for supposing that our Lord’s words, “This is my body,” were to be otherwise interpreted than those parallel words of the Apostle, “that rock was Christ.”*  For as the word “Christ,” which is the predicate in one proposition, is to be literally understood, and the trope lies in the verb “was,” put for “signified,” or exhibitively signified; so the word “body,” which is the predicate in the other proposition, is to be literally interpreted of the natural or personal body of Christ, and the trope lies in the verb “is,”** put for “represents,” or exhibitively signifies.  And as it would not be right to say that the rock was a spiritual Christ, distinct from the real Christ, making two Christs; so neither can it be right to say or conceive that the bread in the Eucharist is a spiritual body of Christ, making two true bodies of Christ.  But as the rock was a symbol of the one true Christ, so is the sacramental bread a symbol exhibitive of the one true body of Christ, viz. the natural or personal body, given and received in the Eucharist: I say, given and received spiritually, [[The doctrine of eating spiritually was preserved even in Pasch. Radbert. Opp. pp. 1567, 1570, 1571, 1583, 1626.]] but truly and really; and the more truly, because spiritually, as the spiritual sense, and not the literal, is the true sense. [Compare my Review, above.  Jewel’s Answer to Hard. pp. 238, 241, 251, 256, 292.  Bilson’s Christian Subject, p. 631.]

         *[1 Cor. 10:4.  “Solet autem res quae significat, ejus rei nomine quam significat nuncupari. ... Hinc est quod dictum est, petra erat Christus.  Non enim dixit, petra significat, sed tanquam hoc esset; quod utique per substantiam hoc non erat, sed per significationem.  Sic et sanguis, quoniam animam significat in Sacramentis, anima dictus est.”  Augustin. in Levit. q. lvii. p. 516. tom. 3.  Cp. Epist. xcviii. ad Bonifac. p. 268. tom. 2. and my Review, above chap. VII.  “Sacramentorum enim natura et usitata loquendi ratio postulare videtur, ut symbolis non solum nomina, sed et eorum proprietates, imo effecta, tribuantur. Cosin. Histor. Transubst. p. 3.]

         **[See this proved at large in Chamier’s Panstrat. tom. iv. pp. 528, 529, etc.  Albertinus, pp. 525, 526, 686.  Jewel’s Def. of Apol. p. 209.  Answ. to Hard. pp. 238, 239, 255, 267.  Spalatensis, lib. v. cap. 6. n. 73. 169.  Cosin. Histor. Transubstant. pp. 10, 24, 30, 41, 43, 44.  Compare my Review, above.]

         The ancient notion of this matter might easily be cleared from Father to Father, through the earlier centuries; and, I presume, I have competently done it elsewhere. [Review, above Chapters VI and VII.]  Therefore I shall here content myself with a single passage of Macarius, of the fourth century, which very briefly, but fully, expresses what all the rest mean.  He observes, “that bread and wine are offered in the Church as symbols (or antitypes) of our Lord’s body and blood, and that they who partake of the visible bread, do spiritually eat the flesh of our Lord.”*  He is to be understood of worthy partaking; as Albertinus has shewn, [Albertinus, p. 440.] and as reason requires.  And when he speaks of the Lord’s flesh, be cannot be understood of any spiritual flesh locally present in the Eucharist, but of the natural body and blood spiritually given and received, whereof the sacramental body and blood are the symbols, or antitypes, in his account.  Such was the doctrine prevailing in his time, and three centuries, at least, longer.**

         *[___ __ __ ________ Ļ__________ _____ ___ _____ ______Ļ__ ___ ______ _____, ___ _______, ___ ___ __ _______________ __ ___ __________ _____, Ļ__________ ___ _____ ___ ______ ________.  Macar. Homil. xxvii. p. 164.  Cp. Albertin. pp. 437, 438, 439.]

         **[[That doctrine was preserved in the old English or Saxon Church down to the 10th or 11th century, as appears from Aelfric, who thus speaks in his Saxon Homily on Easter-day: “We do now spiritually (_a__-lice) receive or eat Christ’s body, and drink his blood, when we receive (or eat) with true belief, that holy housel (hu_el).” p. 3. ed. Lisle.  “Non sit tamen sacramentum corpus ejus in quo passus est pro nobis, nec sanguis ejus quem pro nobis effudit, sed spiritualiter corpus ejus efficitur et sanguis, sicut manna quod de caelo pluit, et aqua quae de petra fluxit.”  Aelfric. Ep. ad Wulstan. Wanley. 58. ann. circiter 950 et 941.]]

         But in the declension of the seventh century, some began to speak very oddly of the elements, as being literally made, by consecration, the very body and blood of Christ, not images or antitypes at all,* as used to be taught aforetime.  From thence we may reasonably date all the confusion and perplexity which has since so clouded and embarrassed the theory of this Sacrament.

         *[Yet it has been thought, that while they rejected the names of “figure,” “type,” and they or their followers admitted of the names of “symbol” and “representation”.  See Claude, book iv. chap. 10. pp. 341, 344.  Which, if true, shews only how confused those men were, both in language and notion.  [But they seem to have used “type” and “symbol” promiscuously, and to have rejected them both.  ___ __Ļ_, _____ ____ __ ________ ___ _______ ___, ___ _____ ___ _______ ___, ____ _____ ____ __ ____ ___, ___ __ ____ ____  ________ ____ __ Ļ___ ___ _____ ____ ___ Ļ__________, ____ ___ ___ _________ ___________ ___ _____ ___ ____ _____________.  [Theodor. Mopsuest. in Possini Catena, in Matt. 26:26. p. 350.]]

         When learning, language, and taste fell to decay, and men became as much strangers to the sublime of their forefathers, as to the symbolical majesty of the sacred style, then came up a lean, dry, sapless kind of theology, mightily degenerated from the just and elevated sentiments of former ages.*  There was a branch of the Eutychians, who in consequence of their main principle of a confusion of the two natures of Christ (making the human and divine nature one), thought themselves obliged to maintain, that the body of Christ was, from the very moment of his conception, altogether incorruptible.  From this error of theirs they had the Greek name of aphthartodocetae,** and aphthartistae, ___________, and the Latin one of incorrupticolae, and from one Gaianus, a chief leader amongst them, they had some of them the name of Gaianites.  Against those Gaianites, one Anastasius (a monk of Mount Sinai about the year 689)*** happened to engage: and amongst other topics of argumentation, he made choice of one drawn from the Eucharist.  He had learned, or might have learned from Catholic teachers, that by the operation of the Holy Spirit the elements are changed into the body of Christ, meaning the symbolical body; that is, changed into sacraments, or holy signs: and he had learned also, that the worthy communicants do partake of the natural body of Christ, the thing signified; that is, spiritually, mystically, symbolically, partake of it.  These two propositions he confusedly remembered, or rather ignorantly misunderstood, and so he blended them both into this one; that the elements themselves upon consecration become, not in signification, but in reality, the natural body of Christ: which amounted to saying, that, instead of exhibitive signs, they become the very things signified. Under such confusion of thought, he formed his argument against the Gaianites**** in this manner: “The consecrated elements are no types or figures, but they are the very body and blood of our Lord; and they are corruptible, as will appear upon experiment: therefore our Lord’s body, before his resurrection, was also corruptible,”*5 which was to be proved.*6  To confirm his notion that the elements are no types or figures, but the very body, he pleaded, that our Lord, in the institution, said not, This is the figure [anti-type] of my body, but “This is my body.*7  An argument by which he might as easily have proved, that the rock in the wilderness was the very Christ: for St. Paul said not that the rock signified Christ, or was a symbol of Christ; but he declared in express words, “that that rock was Christ.” [1 Cor. 10:4.]  It is hard to say what precise ideas that author had of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, or what he really meant; if indeed he went further than the sound of words.  Albertinus conjectures, from his occasionally mentioning the descent of the Holy Spirit, that be conceived the consecrated elements to become the very body, because the same Spirit was imparted to them as to the natural body of our Lord; a notion not falling in with transubstantiation or consubstantiation, but amounting to some kind of impanation.*8  If so; he may be looked upon, according to what appears, as the first inventor of the spiritual bread-body, or first founder of that system.  But I much question whether that notion can claim so early a date.  Whatever conception the author had of the elements, as made the very body and blood of Christ, yet (so far as we may judge from some passages of another work of the same author, first published by Dr. Allix in 1682 [S. Anastasii Sinaitae Anagogicarum contemplationum in Hexaemeron, liber xii. hactenus desideratus.”  Lond. 1682.  Cp. Fabric. Bibl. Gr. vol. ix. p. 328.]) he did not conceive that the elements were enriched, either with the Spirit himself, or with the graces of the Spirit: for he distinguished between the bread from heaven, viz. the Logos, given to the worthy only, and carrying eternal life with it, and the earthborn flesh of Christ, viz. the consecrated elements, common both to worthy and unworthy, and having no such promise of eternal life annexed to it,*9 in John 6:51.  I will not answer for the acuteness, much less for the soundness of his distinction.  He found himself entangled presently, only by reading a few verses further in the same chapter, where eternal life is annexed to the eating of the flesh and drinking the blood, as well as before to the manducation of the bread from heaven, which he had interpreted of the Divine nature of Christ.  Here he was in straits, and retired in confusion, leaving his readers in the dark; but referring them for instruction to men more knowing, and more equal to the difficulty than he pretended to be: only he seemed to aim at some blind distinction between the earthborn visible flesh*10 which the unworthy partake of, and the mystical flesh*11 which belonged to the worthy only, and which it was very difficult*12 to make any sense or consistency of, upon his principles.  He had discarded signs as such, and had resolved all into the things signified, viz. the real flesh and blood of Christ: and now he wanted a distinction, in order to explain what was received by the unworthy, and what by the worthy, but found none; except it were this, that the unworthy received the corruptible flesh and blood of Christ, separate from his Divinity, while the worthy received both together.  This is all the sense I can make of his notion:*13 and I pretend not to be certain even of this.*14  Neither would I have dwelt so long upon so obscure and unintelligible a writer, had he not been the first, or among the first, that threw off the old distinctions between the symbolical and true body, thereby destroying, in a great measure, the very idea of a Sacrament.  Hitherto the new notion of the elements being made the real body, as opposed to image or figure, had been used only for the support of true doctrine as to other points.  But it is always wrong policy (to say no worse) to endeavour to support sound doctrine by anything unsound, or to defend truth by any thing but truth.  Error, first or last, will infallibly turn on the side of error, and cannot naturally serve for any other purpose.  So it proved in this case: for the next time that this new doctrine appeared upon the stage was in the service of image worship, then creeping into the Church.  They who opposed that innovation, kept up the ancient principle with regard to the elements of the Eucharist, as symbols, figures, images; pleading that our Lord had left no visible image of himself, his incarnation, passion, sacrifice, etc. but that of the Eucharist.  In reply to that plea, the innovators remonstrated against the symbolical nature of the Eucharist, contending that the consecrated elements were no images, types, or figures, but the very body and blood of Christ, literally so.

         *[Literam sequi, et signa pro rebus [quae its significantur] accipere, servilis infirmitatis est.”  Augustin. de Doctrin. Christian. lib. iii. c. 9. p. 49.]

         **[______________.  Vide Damascen. Haeres. lxxxiv. p. 107.]

         ***[Between 677 and 686.  Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. ix. pp. 313, [685.  Oudin. t. i. p. 1663.]  [In the 11th century arose another dispute, namely, whether the consecrated elements were themselves corruptible.  So that the very premises on which Anastasius built his argument for the corruptible nature of the thing signified was disputed.  For since our Lord’s body was held incorruptible, it was now pretended that the eucharistic body, being the same, was incorruptible also.  Vide Salmasius, p. 344, the natural consequence of transubstantiation.]]

         ****[[“Videntur isti homines credidisse omnem panem communem esse antitypum corporis Christi, quia Christus in pane sacramenta constituit sui corporis: at post consecrationem, cum desinat esse communis panis et simplex, desinere esse antitypum corporis, quia jam sit ipsum corpus.”  Salinas. pp. 340, 341.]]

         *5[_ _________.  __Ļ_ ___, Ļ_______ ... ____ _ ________ ___ _____ ___ Ļ_______ _______ ___ _______ _______ __ Ļ_________ ___ _____________, ____ ___ ____ ________ ____ _______, ___ ____ ___ ____, _ _____ _____ __ _ Ļ_Ļ__________ ___’ _____, ___ ______Ļ__ ___ _______ _______, __ _ _____ ___ ______ __ ’________ Ļ__________; ... _ __________ __ _______ ____ __Ļ___ ______Ļ__ ___ _______ _______ ___ _____ _________, _ _____ _____, ___’ ____ __ ____ ___ ____ ______ _______ ___ ____ ___ ____ ______________, ___ ___________ ___ ___________ __ ___ _____ ________ ___ ___Ļ_______ ______.]

         *6[[“Frivolum et ineptum est argumentum: ex re sequeretur imaginem cujuslibet rei aut personae iisdem vitiis plane esse obnoxiam ut ipsum architypum, vel ipsa res cujus est imago. ... At illi negant panem eucharistiae, quem corruptibilem asseverant, esse ______Ļ__ corporis Christi.  Sed quod negant, res ipsa, velint nolint, ostendit.”  Salmasius, p. 343.]]

         *7[_ _________.  ____ Ļ_________, ___ _____ ___________, ____ ___ _____ _____ _______ ... _____ ___ ____ __ ____. ... ___ __Ļ_, _____ ____ __ ______Ļ__ _______ ___ ___ _______ ___.  Anastas. Hodeg. c. xxiii; pp. 349, 350.  N.B.  That weak way of reasoning has been since fathered upon several older writers; as Origen, Magnes, Theodorus Heracleotes, Theodorus Mopsuestenus, Cyrillus Alexandrinus, and others: but those and the like passages appear to be all fictitious, imposed upon those earlier writers by some later Greeks.  See Albertinus, pp. 367, 420, 769, 770, etc. 893.  [The Greeks that came later, Nicephorus, Theodorus Graptus, Samonas, Marcus Ephesius, Theophylactus, Miletius, etc., followed the same scent.  See Pfaffius, pp. 141, 142.  And so Pasch. Radbert. in Matth. p. 1626.]]

         *8[Mens ipsius videtur esse, panem et vinum eatenus esse verum Christi corpus et sanguinem, quatenus idem Spiritus qui proprio Domini corpori et sanguini inest, se pani et vino similiter conimunicat: qui certe monachi hujus conceptus nihil habet commune cum transubstantiatione, aut consubstantiatione, sed impanationis cujusdam, ab aliis post clarius expositae, speciem quandam habet. Albertin. p. 906.  Cp. Claude, lib. iv. C. 9. pp. 331–336.  [N.B.  After that transubstantiation took place, many denied that the consecrated elements were corruptible.  This happened in the 11th century, near four hundred years after Anastasius. 1066.  Vid. Guitmund. t. ii. p. 447.]]

         *9[_ __ ___ _______ _______, ____ _____ _ ____ ______  ___ ___ ___ ____ __ ___ _____ ______.  _______ ___ ___ _____ ... _______ Ļ___ ________ ________  __ ___ _____ ___ __ _______ _____________ ____ _________ __Ļ__ _____ ____ ________  _Ļ_ __ ___ ______, __ ______ _____ ... ______ _________ ___ _________.  __ ___ _____ _______ _Ļ________ ___ _____ ___ _____________ ____ __ ___ _______, ____’ ____ ___ __________ ___ _________ ___ Ļ_______ Ļ_____ ___ ________ ___ _______, __ __ ____ ___ _______ ___________  __ __ ______ ___ __ _____ __________, ___ ________ ___ _____ ______ ___ _______ _______________ ________ ___ _______.  Anastas. Hexaem. lib. xii. p. 18.]

         *10[__ Ļ___ ___ ________ ____ [fort. _____] ______ ___ _______ ______  ________ ___ ___ ______, ___ _____ _ _____ ___ _______ ___ ___ _______ ___ ___________, ___ _____ ___ ___ Ļ_______.  Anastas. ibid. p. 19.]

         *11[___ __ _____ _ ______ ______ ___ ________ ______ ___ _______, ___ __ __ __ ____ ___Ļ_______ _Ļ_______ ____ _____, _______Ļ______ ____ ___________ ___ ______________, ___ ___ ____________.  p. 19.]

         *12[[“Ut quotidie de novo creetur infinitis locis corpus Christi corruptibile, cum sanguine pariter corruptibili, et separato a proprio corpore, ut effusus est ex latere ejus in cruce, id vero nullo modo credibile dictu est, nec possbile factu. ... Non mirum est porro Graeculos istos neotericos doctores in re obscura exponenda, variis semetipsos implicasse contradictionibus. Salinas. pp. 345, 346.]]

         *13[[See the weakness and inconsistency of the notion fully exposed in Salmasius, p. 345, etc.  “Isti volunt ex pane, corruptionis omnia labi obnoxio, confici corpus Christi frangendum, similiter ut in cruce ipse fractus est, et multis aliis praeterea vitiis mucoris, putrefactionis, verminationis corrumpendum, quae non sensit tum corpus Christi: ... Quod non solum est ___Ļ______, sed etiam maxime impium cogitatu.  Non mirum est porro Graeculos istos, etc.  Ibid. pp. 345, 346.]]

         *14[As errors commonly are the corruption of truth, and retain some of the original features, so one may see in Anastasius’s notion some resemblances of the ancient doctrines, miserably perverted or misunderstood.  1. He had learned that the Spirit makes the body of Christ: he interpreted it of the natural body, instead of symbolical, viz. the sacrament of the true body.  2. He had learned that the natural body is given and received: he interpreted it literally, instead of mystically, or spiritually.  3. He had learned that the natural body eaten, is considered as corruptible, crucified and dead, and not as glorified: that he retained, and justly.  4. He had learned, that the flesh profiteth not, and that the unworthy partake not either of the “Logos,” or Holy Ghost, but that the worthy partake of both: and those also he appears to have retained.  Upon the whole, he blundered only in two of the propositions: but those two mistakes, like the flies in the ointment, marred the composition, and corrupted his whole system of the Eucharist.]

         John Damascene, surnamed Mansur, the father of the modern Greeks, and their great oracle, was in this sentiment; a very considerable man otherwise, and worthy of better times. [Damascene flourished about A.D. 740.  Died about A.D. 756.  Vid. Fabric. Bibl. Graec. tom. viii. p. 774.]  He had read the Fathers, who were pointed against him; which however signified little to a person already embarked in a wrong cause: for it is certain, and might be proved by many instances, that men who have any affection stronger than their love of truth, will never want evasions against any evidence whatever.  He pretended that the ancients [[“Locutiones figurae, imaginis, et antitypi, aliquid mutationis octavo saeculo apud Graecos accepisse facile conceperim.”  Simon. not. ad Gabr. Sever. 230.]] had called the elements types, or figures, only before consecration, never after. [Damascene. de Rect. Fid. lib. iv. C. 13. pp. 271, 273, edit. Lequ. [Cf. Cone. Nicen. ii. Act. vi. p. 370.  Hard.]]  A plea notoriously false in fact, as all learned men know:* and had he said just the reverse, viz. that the Fathers had never so called them before consecration, but always after, he had come much nearer to the truth.  The elements, before they are consecrated, are common things: and it is their consecration only that renders them figures, signs, symbols, sacraments.  To pretend therefore that they are signs or symbols before consecration, is making them sacraments before they are sacraments, and carries a contradiction in the very terms. [[Vid. Jewel, Answer to Hard. p. 335.  Salmasius, pp. 341, 445.]]  If the Fathers have ever so called them, which is questioned, it could amount only to some chance expression, contrary to their customary language, and to be accounted for by the figure called a prolepsis, as done by way of anticipation.

         *[See Albertinus, pp. 904, 907, 911, 912, 915.  Jewel’s Answer to Hard, art. xii. p. 335.  Def. of Apol. p. 243.  Bilson’s Christian Subject, pp. 594, 595.  L’Arroque’s Hist. of the Euch. part ii. p. 213, etc. 368, etc.  [Salmasius de Transubst. contra Grot. pp. 338, 339, etc.  Simon. not. in Gabr. Philadelph. p. 230.  Pfaffius in Iren. Fragm. p. 140.]]

         However, Damascene persisted in his error that the consecrated elements are no type or figure, but the very “deified body of our Lord.”*  If you ask, who makes them so? he sometimes tells you, the second Person does it, like as he formed for himself a personal body in the womb [Damascene, ibid. p. 268.]: and sometimes** he says, that the third Person does it, like as he also, overshadowing the Virgin, formed the same body in the womb.***  Thus he drew together the two constructions of Luke 1:35, one prevailing principally before the fourth century, [See above.]  and the other after:**** and he reconciled the two positions handsomely enough, by observing, that the second Person operates by the third.

         *[___ ____ __Ļ__ _ _____ ___ _ _____ ___ _______ ___ _______ ___ _______, __ _______, ___’ __ ____ ___ ______ __________.  Damascene. de Rect. Fid. lib. iv. c. 13. p. 271.]

         **[[“Paulus Diaconus Aquileiensis A.D. 785.  Praescius conditor noster infirmitatis nostrae, ea potestate qua cuncta fecit ex nihilo, et corpus sibi ex carne semper-virginis, operante Sancto Spiritu, fabricavit, panem et vinum aqua mixtum, manente propria specie, in carnem et sanguinem suum, ad catholicam fidem, ob reparationem nostram Sancti Spiritus sanctificatione convertit. In Vit. Gregorii M.  Then Paulus reports a pretended miracle of Gregory to convert a woman and to confirm the doctrine.]]

         ***[Damascene, ibid. p. 269.  Epist. ad Zachar. Ep. Duarorum, p. 656.  [Cp. Pasch. Radb. c. 3. p. 1563. iv. 1565. 1588.  Gratian. de Consecrat. dist. 2.  Paulus Diaconus in Vit. Gregor. I. A.D. 734.  Missal. Goth. in Missa Leudegarii A.D. 780.  Steph. Advers. A.D. 1113.]]

         ****[It may be noted that when Ļ_____ _____, in that verse came at length to be interpreted of the third Person, yet _______ _______ continued to be interpreted of the second, namely of the _____.  Athanasius, Orat. iv. pp. 642, 695.  Basil. contr. Eunom. lib. v. p. 318.  Ambros. de Sp. Sancto, lib. ii. c. 5.  Ruffin. in Symb. p. 20. ed. Oxon.  Philastrius, cap. cl. p. 345.  Augustin. contr. Maxim. lib. iii. c. 15.  Leo I. Serm. xxi. p. 147.  Damascene, pp. 204, 658.  Theophylact in loc.  [Euseb. in Isai. p. 385.  Cyrill. Hierosol. Catech. 17. c. 6. p. 266.  Gregor. Nazianz. Or. 38, et 42.  Marius Victorin. contr. Arian. l. i.  Gregor. Moral. l. xciii. c. 12.  Homil. in Evang. 33.  Beda in loc.]]

         But still he was well aware that whatever person should be supposed to make the body in the womb, yet nothing could make that body properly our Lord’s body, but our Lord’s assuming it into an union with himself: the forming an human and a sanctified body would not be making that body Christ’s body: and, for the like reason, the Holy Ghost’s so forming and so sanctifying the elements would not be converting them into, or making them, the body and blood of Christ, but merely a sanctified body.  Therefore Damascene proceeded further to affirm* that our Lord makes the elements his body and blood, by joining his Divinity with them: and it is observable, that while he thought the grace of the Spirit sufficient for the elements of oil and water, in Chrism and Baptism, yet he judged that nothing less than Christ’s own Divinity could make the elements of the Eucharist Christ’s body and blood.  Had he thought of this in time, he might have spared his two previous considerations, about the second and the third Person’s forming or changing the elements into Christ’s body, so improperly brought in; for it is now plain, by his own account, that the elements are not made Christ’s body, but by Christ’s assuming them into some kind of union with his Divinity; and all that was supposed previous could amount only to preparing them, fitting them, sanctifying them, in order to be made the body and blood of Christ.  It could not amount to so much as forming them, like the body in the womb, though he had pretended that it did: for the bread and wine want no forming (like the body in the womb), having been formed before, and all along keeping their original forms.  So that at length that pretended previous change could resolve only into a previous sanctification by the Spirit, upon his own principles: the Logos was to do the rest, by assuming those sanctified elements, and making them the body and blood of Christ.  So confused and incoherent was this great man.

         *[_________ __ _____ ___ _____ ___ _____ ___ Ļ________ ... _Ļ___ ____ ____ _____Ļ___ _____ _______, ____ __ ___ _____ Ļ_____, __________ ______ ___ _____ _______, ___ Ļ_Ļ______ ____ ____ ___ ____ _____.  Damasc. p. 269.]

         But what was worse still, after all these lengths of fancy, there was yet a difficulty remaining, which was altogether insuperable.  The elements were to be made the very deified body of Christ, like as the personal body, in the womb, had been made.  How could this be, without the like personal union of the elements with the Divinity?  Here Damascene was plunged, and attempted not to get out, excepting only a few short hints, at that time, or in that work.  But in another work, in the way of a private letter, he did endeavour to surmount the difficulty, by suggesting and enforcing a new piece of subtlety, that like as a man’s body takes in daily additional matter, and all becomes one and the same body; so our Lord’s personal body takes in all the new-made bodies of the Eucharist; and thus, by a kind of growth, or augmentation, all become one and the same personal body of Christ.*  A marvelous thought!  But he was wedded to a new scheme, and was in no disposition to return to the old principles, which might have eased him of all perplexities.  The heart will commonly govern the head: and it is certain, that any strong passion, set the wrong way, will soon infatuate even the wisest of men: therefore the first part of wisdom is to watch the affections.  But I pass on.

         *[Damascene. Epist. ad Zachar. pp. 655-659.  N.B.  There is something of a like thought appearing in a work ascribed to Gregory Nyssen, Orat. Catechet. magn. c. xxxvii. p. 537.  But there are strong suspicions that that work has been interpolated.  It is certain, that there is, in the close, an addition from Theodorus Raithu, who flourished about A.D. 646.  So that there is no depending upon the whole work as genuine; but there may be, and probably are interpolations in it, perhaps of the seventh or eighth century, or later.  See Albertinus, p. 487.  Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. tom. viii. p. 153.  But if Nyssen really held any such notions, or used any such expressions, they were affected and singular, and ought to bear no weight against the known sentiments and common style of the Fathers in general.  [Damascene had hinted this matter before, in his book, l. iv. p. 270, but had not explicitly opened his meaning: __Ļ__ _______ ___ ___ _______ _ _____ ___ _ _____ ___ __ ____ ___ ___ Ļ_____ ___ ____ ___ ____ ___ _________ ___ Ļ_______ _____________, ___ ________ ______ ____ Ļ_Ļ_ __ Ļ_______ _____ _____  _____ _ ___ Ļ________ _____, _____ __ ___ ____, ___ ___ _Ļ________ ___ _Ļ__________ ___ _____ Ļ________, _Ļ______ ____Ļ________ ___ __ ____ ___ _______ ___ ____, ___ ___ ____ ___, ___’ __ ___ __ ____.]]

         I am aware that the late learned editor of Damascene has disputed the genuineness of that epistle. [In admonitione Praevia, p. 652.]  But the external evidences for it appear to me to outweigh the slight suspicions drawn from the internal characters.  And I am much mistaken, if any unprejudiced examiner will find that the learned editor has proved any thing more than a strong desire to fetch off his author from some palpable absurdities, lest they should too much impair his credit as to other points.  But, however that be, it is certain that Damascene’s system wanted some such additional succour as that epistle endeavoured to supply: and whether he did the kind office himself, or some other did it for him, is of no great moment with respect to the main cause.  One thing we may observe from the whole, that whosoever once embraces any great absurdity, and resolves to abide by it, must, if he will be consistent and uniform, proceed to more: and though to go on is a kind of madness, yet to stop short betrays more weakness and self-condemnation.

         No transubstantiation (such as the Romanists hold) was yet invented. Damascen’s doctrine was far enough from that [Vid. Albertinus, pp. 912, 913.  L’Arroque’s Hist. of Euch. p. 366, etc.  Claude against Arnaud, part i. book iv. chap. 9. p. 338.  [And others referred to by Zornius, Histor. Eucharist. Infant. p. 457.]]; excepting that it might accidentally and gradually lead to it, as indeed it did, by sapping those ancient principles which otherwise were sure barriers against it, and by setting men’s minds afloat after new devices.

         From Damascene we may pass on to the famous Council of Constantinople, which consisted of three hundred and thirty-eight bishops, who assembled under Constantine the Sixth, surnamed Copronymus, A.D. 754.  They, detesting all image worship, reestablished the ancient doctrine of the elements being commemorative and exhibitive types, figures, symbols, or images of the natural body and blood of Christ; alleging that the Eucharist was the only image of Christ’s incarnation which Christ had authorized in his Church.*  They speak magnificently of the consecration, and the effects of it; the elements thereby becoming an holy image, and deified, as it were, by grace [_____ _____ ____, __ ___ _____ ________ ______ ________.  p. 368.            ]: by which they appear to mean no more than divinely sanctified,** according to the ordinary use of such phrases, at that time, and before [Vid. Suicer’s Thesaur. tom. i. 444, 1363, 1392, 1398.  Jewel’s Answer to Hard. p. 247.  Albertinus, p. 886, and compare Damascene. lib. iii. c. 17. p. 239.]: and they themselves explain it by its being made holy, when before it was common.***  And though they speak of the elements being replenished,**** that is, sanctified by the Holy Ghost, yet they reserve the enlivening or life-giving virtue to the true and proper body and blood of Christ;***** not to the elements, the image of them.  They distinguish between the real, natural body, and the relative body, or body by institution and appointment. [__Ļ__ ___ __ ____ _____ ___ _______ ____ _____, __ _______  _____ _____ ___ __ _____ ...  p. 368.  For the phrase, _____ ____ _____, vid. Damascene. tom. i. p. 354.]  The meaning of the latter must be determined by what it is appointed to; which the Council itself sufficiently explains: it is appointed to be a true image, and a most clear memorial of the natural body [_____ ___ _______ ______ ... __ _____ _ ____________ ___ ____ ... ___ __Ļ__ ___ _________ ____________ ____ _____ _______ Ļ_________.  p. 368.]: a true image, as opposed to bare representation, as in a picture, not exhibitive of, or accompanied with true and spiritual benefits: a very clear memorial, as opposed to the faint shadows and dark intimations of the legal types or figurations.  Some further light perhaps may be given to the true meaning of those Constantinopolitan Fathers, by a short passage of the Emperor Copronynms, preserved by Nicephorus, who was Patriarch of Constantinople from 806 to 815.  The passage runs thus:

         *[The whole passage may be seen in the Acts of the second Nicene Council, Act. vi. pp. 368, 369.  Harduin, tom. iv. Compare Dr. Covel’s translation of it, and remarks upon it; Account of Gr. Church, pp. 150, 151; and Albertinus, p. 914; and Claude, book iv. chap. 10. pp. 347–355.]

         **[[“Consecrare idem est Latinis scriptoribus quod deum facere ut de illis qui in numerum deorum referebantur, quae est Graecorum _Ļ_______. Salinas. de Transubst. pp. 437, 439, 443.]]

         ***[___ ___________ _____, __ ______ ______ ___ _______ ______ ___ ___ ___ _____ Ļ________ _Ļ__________ ___________, _____ ____ ________ ________, ____________ ___ __ _________ __ ___ ______ Ļ___ __ _____, ___ ________ Ļ________ ______.  p. 368.  [Non enim _______ aut virtutem divinam ex verbis consecrationis inditam esse pani crediderunt, quamvis et spiritum invocatum, de caelo descendere dixerunt, et adesse, et praesentia sua vegetare et implere species elementorum in mensa dominica positas.”  Salmas. p. 443.  Cp. 446.]]

         ****[[Simulacra consecrari dicebantur, cum deus cui dedicabantur, in ea certis carminibus eliciebatur, ut divinitate sua illa repleret, et in simulacro deus ipse praesens haberi et coli videretur. Idem, p. 438.  Cp. 443.]]

         *****[___Ļ___ ______ _____ ... _____ ___ ___Ļ____ _______ _____ ... ___ __ Ļ______ ___ ________ _______ ___ Ļ______ _____.  Note, that Mr. Johnson, inadvertently, rendered the last words, “life-giving cup of the blood which [flowed] out of his side,” (Unbloody Sacrifice, p. 195); he should have rendered, as Dr. Covel has done, “the cup of the enlivening blood of his side”: which is different, and gives quite another idea to the main thing.  Cp. Theodoret. Dial. ii. p. 85.]

         “He commanded his holy disciples and apostles to deliver, by what thing he pleased, a symbol [type] for his body: that through the sacerdotal ministration we might receive really and truly, though it be by participation and designation, his very body.”*  The meaning, as I apprehend, is, that we partake of the natural body itself, in a true and reasonable sense (that is, symbolically or spiritually), by receiving what God has instituted as a symbol and instrument to convey it.  Copronymus does not say, that the elements are really and truly that body: no, that was the very position of the adverse party.  But he affirms that we truly and really receive that very body, though symbolically, or by an appointed medium and pledge of it: which I understand to be exactly the same doctrine that our Church teaches, viz. that the body and blood of Christ are “verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper.” [See my Review, above.]  This doctrine did not happen to please the Nicene Fathers, who sat thirty-three years after, in the year 787.  It was not sufficient to say, that by or with the elements we do verily and indeed receive Christ’s body and blood, but the elements themselves must literally be the very body and the very blood of Christ, and not types or pledges only of it.**  Not indeed in the sense of Papal transubstantiation (which was not then thought on [Vid. Albertinus,p. 915.  Covel, pp. 151, 152.]), but in some such sense as Anastasius or Damascene had before recommended.

         *[_________ ____ ______ _____ ________ ___ _Ļ________, Ļ_________ __ __ ______ Ļ________ __Ļ__ ___ ____ _____.  ___ ___ ___ _________ ________, ___ __ __ _______ ___ _____ _______, _______, _______ ____, __ ______ ___ ______, ____ _____.  Constantin. Copronym. in Notis ad Damascene. tom. i. p. 354.  As to the ecclesiastical use and sense of the word ______, see Albertinus, p. 461.  Claude, part ii. p. 76]

         **[____ _ ______, ____ __ _Ļ_______,_ Ļ______ ______ __Ļ__ ... ____ ____ __ ____ ___ ____ __ ____. ...  ____ __ ___ ________ ____ ______ ___ ____ _______ ________, ___ ____, ___ Ļ__________.  Concil. Nicen. ii. Act. vi. pp. 370, 371.  Harduin, tom. iv.]

         Seven years after (viz. A.D. 794) appeared the Caroline books, moderating in the dispute between the Councils of Constantinople and Nice.  The author or authors of them determine that the Sacrament of our Lord’s body and blood goes much beyond a picture of man’s device, in many respects; which they handsomely enumerate [Distat Sacramentum Dominici corporis et sanguinis ab imaginibus pictorum arte depictis, etc. Carol. Magn. lib. ii. p. 278]: and of that no man can doubt.  They determine further, that the elements are not types of things future, nor faint shadows, like those under the law, but that they are truth and substance;* a sacrament and mystery; commemorative of a thing performed, and not prefigurative of a thing hoped for only, or promised: a sacrament directly and plainly signifying and exhibiting the true expiation, and not merely under the dark covers or remote innuendos of legal expiations.  In short, the eucharistic symbols are not prefigurations of things expected, but evidences of things done, and memorials of mercies and blessings in hand, not in prospect only.  Their whole meaning seems to be, that though the consecrated elements are really signs and symbols (for so much they intimate in the words sacrament, mystery, and true image), and therefore not the very body and blood, as many then taught; yet they are more than types, or prefigurations, or adumbrations, or even bare memorials, because they exhibit the things signified, and that not darkly or indirectly (which even the Jewish sacraments did),** but directly and plainly, under the strongest light, and to greatest advantage.  This doctrine is sound and good, and well guarded, in the main, against both extremes.  Only, it might have been wished, that they had been less scrupulous about the use of the name figure,*** or image (so common and familiar in elder times), and that they had given less countenance to the novel and affected phrases then coming into vogue: for, generally speaking, ancient doctrine is best kept up by adhering strictly to ancient language; and new phrases at any time, taken up without necessity, have been observed to lead the way to a new faith.

         *[Nec nobis legis transeuntibus umbris imaginarium quoddam indicium, sed sui sanguinis et corporis contulit Sacramentum.  Non enim sanguinis et corporis Dominici mysterium imago jam nunc dicendam est, sed veritas; non umbra, sed corpus; non exemplar futurorum, sed id quod exemplaribus praefigurabatur. ... Jam verus Melchizedech, Chiristus videlicet, rex justus, rex pacis, non pecudum victimas, sed sui nobis corporis et sanguinis contulit Sacramentum.  Nec ait, Haec est imago corporis et sanguinis mei, sed Hoc est corpus meum. ... Cum ergo, at praefati surnus, nec artificum opus, vera Christi possit imago dici, nec corporis et sanguinis ejus mysterium, quod in veritate gestum esse constat, non in figura, merito, etc.  Carol. Magri. de Imagin. lib. iv. p. 520.  Cp. Albertin. pp. 916, 917.  Jewel’s Answer to Harduin, art. xii. pp. 344, 345.  Bilson’s Christian Subject, p. 593.  Claude, part i. book v. chap. 9. pp. 96, 97.  L’Arroque, p. 380, etc.]

         **[Idem itaque in mysterio cibus et potus illorum qui noster, sed significatione idem, non specie: quia idem ipse Christus illis in petra figuratus, nobis in carne manifestatus. Augustin. in Psalm 77. p. 816.]

         ***[[These words were kept in the English-Saxon Church two hundred years later, as appears by Aelfric.  “This mystery is a pledge and a figure: Christ’s body is truth itself: this pledge we do hold mystically, until we come to the truth itself, and then there is an end of the pledge.”  Sax. Hom. on Easter-day, pp. 7, 8.]]

         Hitherto, however, the western parts appear to have retained just ideas of the holy Eucharist.*  But before the end of the ninth century, the eastern innovations, introduced by Anastasius and Damascene, and established by the Nicene Council, spread wide and far, both among Greeks and Latins.  When it was once resolved that the consecrated elements should be no longer signs or figures at all, but the very body and blood of Christ, the symbolical language of Scripture and Fathers became neglected, and in a while forgotten; and the old notion of a sacrament, as importing a sign and a thing signified, wore off apace: and now all the care was, how to make out that very body and blood, by some subtle evasions or newly devised theories.  Many are the wanderings of human invention, after men have once departed from the right way; as sufficiently appeared from the great variety of systems soon set up. [[Vid. Guitmundus, de Verit. Euchar. l. 1. pp. 441, 442.  Bibl. PP. tom. xviii. l. 3. p. 460.  Algerus, tom. xxi. p. 351.]]  Instead of the only ancient and true system: and they were all but as so many different modifications of one and the same error, committed in sinking the idea of symbolical grants, and thereupon confounding figure and verity, exalting signs into things signified.  But let us inquire more particularly what ways were taken, or could be taken, to make it competently appear, that the elements once consecrated are no signs, but the very body and blood of Christ.  They are reducible perhaps to five, as follows: 1. Either the elements must literally become the same personal body.  2. Or they must literally contain or enclose the same personal body.  3. Or they must literally become another personal body.  4. Or they must literally contain another personal body.  5. Or they must literally be or contain a true and proper body of Christ, distinct and different from a personal body.

         *[[Yet Paulus Diaconus (who died in 801) is an exception, in what he says in his Life of Gregory.  And one may reasonably judge that transubstantiation was then first creeping in by their feigning of miracles to support the novelty.]]

         1.  As to the first, it was undoubtedly the thing aimed at by the first innovators; namely, by Anastasius, and Damascene, and the Nicene Fathers.  And they endeavoured to make it out in the way of augmentation, as has been related, joining the new-made body here to the personal body above, so as to make one personal body of both.  Another shorter way of coming at the point was that of transubstantiation, which crept in later, and which the Latins generally fell into; for relief, as it seems, to wearied minds, fluctuating in uncertainties, and not knowing how or where to rest.

         2.  As to the second way, which has been called consubstantiation, some think that Paschasius Radbert (about A.D. 831) took into it [Cosin. Histor. Transubstant. p. 86.  Cp. Albertinus, p. 922.  But others interpret him of transubstantiation.  See Claude, part ii. p. 198, etc.]: others conceive that it came in later. [Hospinian, Histor. Rei Sacram. [part ii. p. 6. about A.D. 1060.]]

         3.  As to the third way, some have imagined that our Lord’s Divinity becomes personally united with the elements, as well as with his own natural body, having in that sense two personal bodies.  This conceit has sometimes gone under the name of assumption,* as it imports the Deity’s assuming the elements into a personal union; and sometimes it has been called impanation,** a name following the analogy of the word incarnation.  Rupertus Tuitiensis (about A. D. 1111) has been believed to espouse this notion [Vid. Hospinian. p. 7.  Albertinus, pp. 959, 960.  Pfaffius de Consecrat. Euch. pp. 449, 450.  Buddaeus, Miscellan. Sacr. tom. ii. p. 80.]; and Odo Cameracensis,*** who lived about the same time.  It is much the same notion that St. Austin supposes ignorant children might be apt to conceive, in their simplicity, at the first hearing of what is said of the elements, and before they come to know better.****  So simple were even famous Divines grown in the late and dark ages.

         *[N.B.  Assumption has been also a common name for Damascene’s hypothesis, wherein it is supposed that the Divinity assumes the elements into a personal union, but by the medium of the natural and personal body.  Vid. Pfaffius de Consecrat. p. 430.  Buddaeus, Sacr. tom. ii, p. 83. [Ad hanc ipsis fanaticam credulitatem praeivere veterum patrum scripta non bene intellecta, et recentiorum de realitate et praesentia corporis Christi dogma.  Ex his duobus monstris tertium composuerunt de ista hypostatica unitate panis et divinitatis: quasi divinitas assumpto pane eum faceret corpus Christi, non mutata tamen nec destructa panis substantia. Salinas. p. 416.]]

         **[[A.D. 1070, circiter.  Sic Guitmudus: Quae insania est, ut Christum, ut ita dixerim, sua autoritate impanent et invinent?  Christum incarnari humanae redemptionis ratio exposcebat: at impanari vel invinari Christum nulla expetit ratio. Bibl. PP. tom. xviii. p. 461.  Unde nova haec companatio?  Ibid. p. 461. lib. iii. conf. p. 464. 1130.  Algerus, p. 251. tom. xxi. Bibl. PP. p. 260.]]

         ***[Fac ergo Domine, nostram oblationem adscriptam, ut pretiosum corpus Christi fiat, Verbo Dei adunata, et in unitate personae conjuncta. Odo. Cameracens. in Sacr. Can. Exposit. Bibl. PP. tom. vi. p. 360.  [Paris. tom. xii. Colon. t. xxi. Lugd. p. 221.]]

         ****[Infantes ... si nunquam discant experimento, vel suo vel aliorum, et nunquam illam speciem rerum videant, nisi inter celebrationes sacramentorum, cum offertur et datur, dicaturque illis authoritate gravissima, cujus corpus et sanguis sit, nihil aliud credent, nisi omnino in illa specie Dominum oculis apparuisse mortalium, et de latere tali percusso liquorem illum omnino fluxisse. Augustin. de Trin. lib. iii. c. 10. p. 803.  Conf. Albertin. pp. 648, 649.]

         4.  As to the fourth way, those who have supposed some spiritual and personal body from above, distinct from the natural, to come upon the elements, and to abide in them and with them, have had some colour for it from two very ancient passages, one of Clemens Alexandrinus, and another of Jerome.*  But it hath been abundantly shewn, time after time, by learned and able men, that that ancient distinction ought not to be understood of two personal bodies of Christ, but of two distinct views or considerations of one and the same natural and personal body. [Beza de Coena, Domini, p. 93.  Jewel’s Answer to Harding, art. 5. pp. 248, 249.  Albertinus, pp. 315, 395.  Rivet in Consult. de Relig. p. 26.  Chamier, tom. iv. p. 695.  Spalatensis, lib. v. c. 6. p. 103.]  The celebrated Bertram, (that is, Ratramn,) of the ninth century, has been by some supposed to be of the number of those who made two such bodies of Christ.  There is some appearance of it, but, I think, appearance only: for upon carefully weighing and considering his real sentiments, it will be found, that be supposed only a sacramental body received orally, and the natural body received spiritually in the Eucharist. [Bertram de Corpore et Sanguine Domini, pp. 16, 24, 36, 40, 96, 100, 114, 116. edit. Anglo-Latin. Lond. A.D. 1686.]

         *[______ __ __ ____ _______  __ ___ ___ _____ _____ ________, _ ___ ______ ____________  __ __ Ļ__________, _________ _ __________.  Clem. Alex. Paedag. lib. ii. c. 2. p. 177.  Compare Review, above.  “Dupliciter vero sanguis Christi, et caro intelligitur: vel spiritualis illa et divina, de qua ipse dixit Caro mea vere est cibus; vel caro et sanguis, quae crucifixa est, et qui militis effusus est lancea. Hieron. in Ephes. p. 327.  Opp. tom. iv. edit. Bened.  Cranmer, b. iv. p. 276.  [Quod Sacramentum est Augustino, Irenaeo est res terrena: quod hic res caelestis illi est res sacramenti, sive corpus Christi.Haec res sacramenti et virtus sacramenti,etiam veritas sacramenti dicitur, et spiritus, et gratia, nempe spiritalis, et corpus Christi, spiritale scilicet. Salmas. pp. 163, 165.  The body considered as corporally present in heaven, is corpus naturale et sensibile, but considered as spiritually present in the Eucharist, is corpus spiritale, intelligibile.”]

         5. There is yet a fifth way, which prevailed with many, as high as the ninth century; which was to imagine some kind of union of our Lord’s Divinity with the consecrated elements, short of personal, but yet presumed sufficient to denominate them in a true and proper sense (as opposed to symbolical) the Lord’s body and blood.  Remigitis,* who flourished about the year 890, conceived, that our Lord’s Divinity filling the natural body and the mystical, viz. the Church, and the consecrated elements, made all the three to become one body of Christ.  It is observable, that he admits of but one of the three to be Christ’s body in the personal sense: but having a confuse notion of some remote union of each with the Logos, which was common to them all, he therefore called each of them singly a true body of Christ, and all conjunctly one true body.  The like account may be seen in the book De Divinis Officiis, [Pseudo-Alcuinus de Divin. Off. cap. 40. p. 287. ed. Hittorp.] falsely ascribed to Alcuinus of the eighth century, written probably in the eleventh century or later.  The sum is, that because one of the three is truly Christ’s body in a symbolical sense, and the other truly his body in a mystical sense, and the third in a true and proper sense; therefore all the three are severally a true body of Christ, and together one true body.  Such were the rovings of men bewildered in their ways, after they had deserted the old paths.  It is however worth the observing, that this author was very solicitous to avoid the suspicion of making two true bodies of Christ, which Christian ears could not bear: and further, that he retained so much of the ancient principles, under clouds of confusion, as to suppose the Logos to be the heavenly food of the Eucharist, and he resolved the formal reason of the name of Lord’s body into some immediate relation to the person of Christ.  I do not find that the third Person’s filling the elements with himself, or with his graces, was hitherto supposed the immediate ground or formal reason of their having the name of Christ’s body: or had it so been, the element of Baptism, upon the analogy observed by the ancients, would most certainly have had a better title to the name.  For the Holy Ghost was supposed more immediately to preside, as it were, in that Sacrament, under the figure of a conjugal union, as before mentioned: and even as low as Damascene we find, that while the grace of the Spirit was said to be joined with the oil and the water, the very Divinity of the second Person was supposed to be joined with the elements of the Eucharist. [See above.]

         *[Caro quam Verbum Dei Patris assumpsit in utero Virginali, in unitate suae personae, et panis qui consecrator in Ecclesia, unum corpus Christi sunt.  Sicut enim illo caro corpus Christi est, ita iste panis transit in corpus Christi; nec sunt duo corpora, sed unum corpus.  Divinitatis enim plenitudo quae fuit in illa, replet et istum panem, etc. ... et sicut ille panis et sanguis in corpus Christi transeunt, ita omnes qui in Ecclesia digne comedunt illud, unum Christi corpus sunt. ... Tamen illa caro quam assumpsit, et iste panis, omnisque Ecclesia non faciunt tria corpora Christi, sed unum corpus.”  Remig. Antissiodorensis (alias Haymo) in 1 Cor. 10. p. 132.  [Conf. ejusdem Remigii Exposit. Missae, Bibl. PP. tom. xvi. p. 957. sive de celebratione missae.]  “Sicut caro Christi quam assumpsit in utero Virginali, verum corpus ejus est, et pro nostra salute occisum, ita panis quem Christus tradidit discipulis suis ... et quem quotidie consecrant sacerdotes in Ecclesia, cum virtute Divinitatis quae illum replet panem, verum corpus Christi est; nec sunt duo corpora illa caro quam assumpsit, et iste panis, sed unum verum corpus faciunt Christi. Id. in 1 Cor. 11. p. 137.  Cp. Albertin. p. 938.]

         I am sensible that a great show of authorities has been produced in order to persuade us that, according to the ancients, the third Person was presumed to make the elements the body and blood of Christ. [Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. pp. 187–195.]  But out of twenty-two authorities, seventeen, as I conceive, either must or may be understood of the second Person,* the _____, often called Spirit: and the five remaining authorities prove only, that the Holy Ghost [Cyril. Hierosol., Optatus, Chrysostom, Austin, and Council of Constantinople.] makes the elements sacraments, or sanctified symbols, or an holy body, fitting them for the uses intended, and preparing the communicants at the same time.  The Holy Ghost prepares both the symbols and the guests: but still it is the Logos, the incarnate Logos, who is properly the spiritual food or feast, according to Scripture and all Catholic antiquity; and that not as residing, by his Divinity, in the elements, but as adsistant only, or concomitant; and that to the worthy only.**  But I pass on.

         *[1. Ignatius.  2. Justin Martyr.  3. Irenaeus.  4. Clemens Alexandrinus.  5. Origen.  6. Cyprian.  7. Athanasius.  8. Julius Firmicus.  9. Nazianzen.  10. Epiphanius.  11. Gregory Nyssen.  12. Ephrem Syrus.  See Albertin. 453.  13. Gaudentias.  14. Cyrill. Alex.  See Albertin. 454.  15. Gelasius.  16. Theodorite.  17. Pseud-Ambrose.  [See Cranmer, p. 356; above, and Review, above.]]

         **[[“Ea igitur communio spiritus et panis, spiritus et vini, quam Patres in his sacramentis fieri dicunt, non in ipso pane fit, neque in ipso calice, sed in corde sumentis per fidem. Salmasius, p. 429.  See below, and compare Pfaffius, pp. 414, 431, 432, 446.  “Ex istis apparet totidem exortas fuisse haereses circa praesentiam corporis Christi in eucharistia quot olim fuere circa Verbi incarnationem in eo mysterio; cum alii ___’ _________, eam extitisse dicerent, alii ____ ___________, alii ____ Ļ__________.  Huic postremae par est Lutheranorum sententia. Salmas. p. 422.  “Non sanctificatur ut sit tam magnum Sacramentum, nisi operante invisibiliter Spiritu Dei. Augustin. de Trin. l. iii. c. 4.]]

         I have been observing something of the various wanderings and mazes which thoughtful men fell into, after the change of doctrine introduced in the seventh century.  For from thence came augmentation, assumption, impanation, composition, consubstantiation, transubstantiation, local presence, and oral manducation of the “res sacramenti,” inherent virtues, bread sacrifice,* bread worship, and the like; all issuing from the same source, all springing from the same root; namely, from that “servilis infirmitas,” which St. Austin speaks of, the mistaking signs for things, and figure for verity.

         *[[“Ne forte ob hoc censeamur indigni, si non satis discernimus illud, nec intelligimus, mysticum Christi corpus et sanguis quanta polleat dignitate, quantaque praeemineat virtute, et discernatur a corporeo gustu, ut sit praestantius omni sacrificio veteris testamenti.”  Paschal. Radbert. c. 2.  Opp. p. 1559.  Algerus, 268.  “Christi caro est, quae pro mundi vita adhuc hodie offertur.” 555.  When bread was once supposed to be literally that body which was sacrificed, it must of course be thought a sacrifice: hence bread sacrifice.]]

         The Reformation, as is well known, commenced in the sixteenth century, and then this high subject came to be reconsidered, and to be set in a proper light, upon the foundation of Scripture and antiquity.  But disputes arose even among Protestants.  For though the later and grosser corruptions of the Latin Church were soon thrown off with general consent, yet some of the older and more refined depravations of the Greeks were not easily distinguished (in those infant days of criticism) from what was truly ancient, but had made too deep an impression upon the minds of many serious persons.  The nature of symbolical grants and constructional conveyances was not so well considered as might have been wished.  Many understood not what eating could mean, unless it were conceived to be oral and literal: neither could they suddenly bring their minds to comprehend how a thing could be said to be given and received at the supper, without being literally, locally present in the supper, in the very tokens or pledges of the heavenly things there made over to every faithful communicant.  As if livery and seisin might not be given and taken by proper instruments: or as if a ring, a book, a crosier, or other tokens of investiture, might not convey lands, honours, dignities, without being inwardly enriched with,* or outwardly converted into the very things themselves which they so convey.  For as any person becomes legally vested in an estate by the delivering and receiving of deeds, though he does not literally take the lands and tenements into his hands, nor grasp them in his arms; so may a person, in construction of Divine law, be vested in or possessed of the Lord’s body and blood, and whatever depends thereupon, without literally receiving the same into his mouth.**  The notion is a very plain and easy notion that one might justly wonder how it came to pass, that even Divines of good note should not hit upon it at first; or if they did, should slight it.***

         *[See Review, above.  “Sicut sigillum principis vere est non otiosum, sed efficax, nulla tamen sibi indita virtute, sed authoritate duntaxat principis quasi comitante: sic Sacramenta, quae in signis et signaculis esse negare nullus potest, ... etsi nulla in rebus externs vi indita agant in animas hominum, aut in gratiam quae in iis quaeritur, tamen non desinunt esse instrumenta efficacia, tanquam ______ ___ _________. Chamier, tom. iv. p. 57.  [See below.  “Quomodo, dicente Bernardo, confertur Canonicatus per dationem libri, Abbatis praefectura per baculum, Episcopatus per annulum: quomodo de consensu contrahentium per traditionem authentici instrumenti confertur haereditas, quomodo etiam ex nummo uno fit arrha, quae valet ad solutionem mille nummorum; sic ex pacto et conventione inter Deum et hominem, ad dignam sacramentorum perceptionem gratia divina confertur, et caelestis haereditatis arrha.  Quae est sententia, non nostrae duntaxat ecclesiae, sed et primorum Romanensium, tum veterum Halensis, Gaudavensis, Bonaventurae, Scoti; tum etiam multorum recentium, Cani, Vasquesii. Ward, p. 44.]]

         **[[“His body and blood are by this Sacrament assured to be no less ours than his – He hath made himself all ours.  Ours his passions, ours his merits, ours his victory, ours his glory.  And therefore he giveth himself and all his in this sacrament wholly up to us.”  Archbishop Sandy; Serra. xv. p. 134.  See Review, above.]]

         ***[It is marvelous to observe, how from the time of Paschasius Radbert, of the ninth century, down to the sixteenth, almost the whole Latin Church were imposed upon themselves, or imposed upon others, by confounding two very distinct propositions with each other, as if they were the same.  [A.D. 890.  Ratram opposed transubstantiation.  A.D. 1035 circiter, Berengarius began to oppose that doctrine: condemned in several Councils, 1050, 1053, 1055, 1059, 1078, 1079.  He died A.D. 1088.]  They saw plainly, both in Scripture and Fathers, that the natural body of Christ is the thing signified, and received by the faithful in the Eucharist: that is to say, received with the elements, spiritually received.  Had they rested there, all had been right.  But by slipping a false consequence, or false comment upon true premises, they inadvertently changed that sound proposition into this very unsound one: that the elements literally are that very natural body, locally present, and orally received by every communicant.  They had lost the idea of a symbolical and constructional reception; which requires neither local presence nor corporal contact.  [The Anglo-Saxon Church retained the old distinctions till the close of the 10th century, as appears from Aelfric’s Saxon Homily on Easter Day, p. 7.  He was Abp. of Cant. 993, and died A.D. 1006.]]

         Our Divines, as Cranmer, Jewel, Hooker, etc. (to do them justice) understood this matter perfectly well.  Neither do I know of any considerable person amongst our early Reformers who missed the right thought: unless perhaps we may except the great Bishop Poynet, in his exile at Strasburg, where he died A.D. 1556.  He drew up his Diallacticon abroad, with a truly pious and pacific design, hoping to contribute something towards healing the then reigning differences between Lutherans and Calvinists, upon the subject of the Eucharist.  The treatise was not published till after his death:* a short preface was prefixed to it by the editor, supposed to be Sturmius. [See the French Supplement to Bayle’s Dictionary, in the article “Poinet.”] I shall give a brief account of the author’s main principles, using the octavo edition of 1576.

         *[Diallacticon viri boni et literati, de veritate, natura, atque substantia corporis et sanguinis Christi in Eucharistia.” 1557.  First edition, Strasburg. 1573.  Second edition, Geneva.  At the end of Beza’s Opuscula, 1576.  Third edition.  At the end of Harchius, 1688.  Fourth edition, London.  By Dr. Pelling.]

         He was a religious admirer of the ancient Fathers: but as their works were not at that time critically distinguished, he was often misled, even in the main lines of his hypothesis, by spurious pieces or passages; quoting several material things under the admired names of Cyprian, Ambrose, and Austin, which belonged not to them, but were some of them as late as the twelfth century.  Many passages of Austin and others stand only on the credit of Gratian, an author of the twelfth century.  And it is known. that the piece De Coena, ascribed to Cyprian, belongs to Arnaldus, who wrote about A.D. 1162.  Under these disadvantages, it is the less to be wondered at, if the excellent author did not everywhere hit that ancient truth which he sincerely sought for.

         1.  In the first place,* he appears to carry the notion of inherent virtues or graces, as lodged in the elements themselves, much too far.**  And he seems to make the conjunction of grace and element absolute and physical.***  By which means, he found himself at length involved in insuperable perplexities upon the point of adoration of the elements, [Page 107, etc.] and the communion of the unworthy [Page 112.]: though he endeavoured to get off from both, as handsomely as the thing would bear.  Our other more cautious Divines of that time, as Cranmer and Jewel, had no concern with those perplexities, any more than the ancient Fathers had: for they avoided the main principle from which those difficulties arose; yea, and flatly contradicted it.****

         *[[“Invocatio illa Dei et benedictio non illigat Spiritum pani, nec includit; sed panem sanctificat, ut posit ab eo qui fidem habet, et mundus est, digne et cum efficacia, non solum sacramentaliter, sed etiam spiritaliter participari. Salmas. p. 428.  Nos non dicimus Sacramenta conferre gratiam per ullam illis inditam aut vim aut qualitatem, sive naturalem sive supernaturalem, quod est gratiam conferre per modum causae physicae: sed dicuntur ex nostrae Ecclesiae sententia,” etc.  Ward, Determ. p. 44.  See below.  “Cum patres haec conjuncta esse asserunt, et Sacramentum a sua virtute minime sejungi dicunt, non intelligunt eum spiritum, sive spiritalem gratiam, pani ipsi inseparabiliter adhaerere, sed in ipso corde ipsius accipientis eam unitatem effici per fidem: quam qui non praestat, is non communicat corpori, sed sacramentum, hoc est, nudum signum accipit, non virtutem sacramenti: signum non rem signi percipit. Salmasius, 427.  See above [and] below, and Pfaffius, pp. 414, 431, 432, 446.]]

         **[Vim vitae signis externis inditam, p. 53.  Virtutem [veri corporis] vitalem conjunctam habet, p. 79.  “Virtus ipsius corporis efficax et vivificacum pane et vino conjungitur, p. 83.  “Intus abditam et latentem naturalem ejusdem corporis proprietatem, hoc est, vivificam virtutem, secum trahat, p. 83.  Virtutem veri corporis spiritualem habet, p. 88.  “Virtus autem interna quae vi Divini Verbi accedit, p. 118.  Virtute benedictionis mysticae vim insitam,” p. 119.]

         ***[Si gratiam et virtutem veri corporis cum pane et vino conjungi credamus, nimium elementis tribuere videbimur, p. 107.  Divina virtus abesse a signo non potest, qua Sacramentum est, p. 112.  “Sacramenta, quam diu Sacramenta sint, suam retinere virtutem, nec ab ea posse separari,” p. 114.]

         ****[See Cranmer’s Preface, cited in Review, above, and compare Review.  Bishop Jewel writes thus: “We are taught, not to seek that grace in the sign, but to assure ourselves by receiving the sign, that it is given us by the thing signified. .... It is not the creature of bread or water, but the soul of man that receiveth the grace of God.  These corruptible creatures need it not: we have need of God’s grace.  But this is a phrase of speaking.  For the power of God, the grace of God, the presence of the Trinity, the Holy Ghost, the gift of God, are not in the water, but in us: and we were not ordained because of the Sacraments; but the Sacraments were made for our sake.”  Jewel’s Treatise of the Sacraments, p. 263. fol. ed.  Compare Def. of Apol. pp. 208, 238.  [Compare Cranmer, pp. 34, 56, 58, 74, 141, 172, 192, 208, 211, 212, 327, 413.]

         2.  The very worthy author appears not to have guarded sufficiently against the notion of two true bodies of Christ, natural above, and spiritual below, in the Eucharist: which is what the mild and moderate Cassander, very tenderly, charged him with; intimating, that he had put the distinction wrong between body and body (as if there were two true bodies), instead of distinguishing between the different manner of exhibiting or receiving one and the same natural body.*  And so far Cassander judged very rightly, and conformably to the ancients: only as he chose to distinguish between a visible and invisible manner, he should rather have expressed it in the terms of literal and spiritual; which is the true distinction.

         *[[“Quae de duplici Christi corpore (Bertramum secutus) erudite disserit, facile aliquos offendat, quibus ex verbis Christi persuasum est, et quidem vere, non aliud corpus in Sacramento fidelibus dari, quam quod a Christo pro fidelium salute in mortem traditum fuit.  Quamvis autem hic distinctione aliqua opus sit, malim tamen illam ad modum praesentiae et exhibitionis quam ad ipsam rem subjectam, hoc est, corpus Christi, adhiberi. Commodius itaque, et ad docendum accommodatius, et Christi instituto convenientius, et ad conciliationem aptius dici videtur, ipsum Christi corpus pro nobis traditum, etiam in Eucharistia tradi; adhibita Augustini distinctione: Ipsum quidem, et non ipsum; ipsum invisibiliter, et non ipsum visibiliter.’” etc.  Cassander, Epist. p. 1084.  Cp. Rivet. Animadv. ad Consult. p. 30.  Apologet. p. 102.  [Discuss. Dialysis, p. 78.]  Grotii Opp. tom. iii. 621, 643, 660, 668.  [“Here you grant that Christ’s body was made of bread.  And then it must follow, that either Christ had two bodies (the one made of flesh of the Virgin Mary, the other of bread), or else that the selfsame body was made of two diverse matters, and at diverse and sondry times.”  Cranmer, 297.]]

         Bishop Cosin,* speaking of Bishop Poynet, represents him (if there be not some error of the press) as making that very distinction which Cassander wished he had made, or which he suggested, by way of correction, as preferable to Poynet’s.  I say, Bishop Cosin represents Poynet as doing the very thing which Cassander required, and mostly in Cassander’s own words, without naming him.  Yet it is plain enough, that that distinction which Cosin ascribes to Poynet was not his, but Cassander’s: wherefore I suspect some error of the press or of the editor (as might easily happen in a posthumous piece), and that Cosin really wrote “malim,” not “maluit,” making Cassander’s censure his own.  But of this let the considerate readers of both judge, as they see cause.  Certain however it is, that Bishop eosin (with all our other learned and judicious Divines) was zealous against the notion of two true bodies of Christ, [[See Cranmer, p. 267.]] and very strongly asserted, yea, and often inculcated, in that small treatise, where he had not much room to spare, that the natural body is the thing signified, the thing spiritually given and received by the faithful in the Eucharist.  He was well aware, how much depended upon that momentous principle [[See Review, above.]]; as well because it was the safe, the only clue to lead serious Christians through all the labyrinths of contending parties, as also because it was fixing the economy of man’s salvation upon its true and firm basis, which is this: that in the Sacraments we are made and continued members of Christ’s body, of his flesh, and of his bones. [Ephes. 5:30.]  Our union with the Deity rests entirely in our mystical union with our Lord’s humanity, which is personally united with his Divine nature, which is essentially united with God the Father, the head and fountain of all.  So stands the economy; which shews the high importance of the principle before mentioned.  And it is well that Romanists, and Lutherans, and Greeks also, even the whole East and Wrest, have preserved it, and yet preserve it: though some of them have miserably corrupted it by the wood, hay, and stubble, which they have built upon it; namely, by a local presence, a literal exhibition, and an oral manducation, with other the like novel additions or defalcations.  But I return.

         *[Licet discrimen ipse cum Patribus agnoscat inter corpus Christi formam humani corporis naturalem habens, et quod in Sacramento est corpus mysticum, rnaluit tamen discrimen illud ad modum praesentiae et exhibitionis, quam ad ipsam rem subjectam, hoc est, Christi corpus verum, accommodari; quum certissimum sit, non aliud corpus in Sacramento fidelibus dari nisi quod a Christo pro fidelium salute in mortem traditum fuit.”  Cosin. Hist. Transubst. p. 10.]

         Twenty years after Poynet, a very learned physician, a German, building upon the same principles, and being much more sanguine and self-confident, pursued them to far greater lengths in two several treatises,* bearing different running titles.**  His name was Harchius.  It was a vast undertaking for that time. He set himself at once to oppose Romanists, Lutherans, and Calvinists (three sects, as he called them [Harch. Patr. Consens. pp. 183, 230.]), condemning them all as guilty of great errors in the article of the Eucharist, and proposing a fourth system, wherein they should all unite.  He boasted highly of the Fathers, as full and clear on his side [Ibid. idem, pp. 77, 127, 129, 270, 278.]: he filled his two books with quotations of that kind: some genuine and some spurious, some ancient and some middle-aged, some Greek and some Latin; many of them misconstrued, more misapplied, but all made to serve the system*** which he had before formed in his mind. [[Patrum multitudine putavit Harchius suum illud commentum aperte confirmari; illis certe non dissimilis quibus si specillis vindicibus utantur viridia omnia apparent.”  Beza, 182. fol. edit.]]  As the attempt was considerable in its way, and commendable for its good meaning; and as it may be of use to know what the system was, and how received, and how confuted (for confuted it was by a very able hand), I shall here take the pains to draw out the chief lines of it, and next to exhibit a brief summary of the answer then made to it.

         *[“De Eucharistiae Mysterio, Dignitate, et Usu: ex unanimi primitivae Ecclesiae Consensu, ad omnium eorum qui Christi Nomen profitentur sedandas Controversias. Libri tres. 4to. Jodoco Harchio, Montense Medico, autore. Wormatiae. 1573.  “Orthodoxorum Patrum ... Fides de Eucharistia et Sacrificio universali Ecclesiae: ad Pontificiorum et Evangelicorum cognoscendas, dirimendasque Controversias, pro Christi Gloria, et Ecclesiarum Pace.  Per Jodocum Harchium, Montensem Medicum.”  A.D. 1576. 8vo.]

         **[The running title of the first: “Concordia de Coena.”  The running title of the second: “Patrum Consensus de Eucharistia.”  N.B.  Hospinian says, this last was printed A.D. 1577.  Hospin. Histor. Sacram. part ii. p. 354.  Which may be true: for I take the date 1576, not from the title page (which has no date), but from the end of the preface, written in 1576.]

         ***[A brief summary of his system, in his own words, is as here follows: “Panis Eucharistiae est corpus quoddam sanctum, consecratione sacerdotum factum divinum; existens veluti imago, repraesentatio, seu sacramentum proprii et animati corporis Christi quod in caelo est; impletum a Christo Spiritu Sancto et Verbo: ut offeratur (mystice) Deo Patri, per ministerium sacerdotum; deinde ut sumatur ab omnibus fidelibus, etc. ... in fide et charitate, ore et corde, ad remissionem peccatorum ... in spem resurrectionis et vitae aeternae, simul et ad memoriam passionis Christi, etc.  Haec definitio vera est et catholica, et a nobis in hoc libro probanda. Harch. Patr. Consens. p. 93. cp. pp. 63, 79.]

         1.  He pleads much for an invocation of the Holy Ghost in the Communion Offices [Harch. Patr. Consens. pp. 25, 96, 98, 100.  Concord. p. 146.]; and he speaks often of some illapse either of the second or third Person upon the elements, or else of some virtue of life, some spiritual and eternal gift, sent down from above, upon the consecrated bread and wine. [Ibid. Concord. pp. 14, 45, 49, 79, 92.  Patr. Consens. pp. 56, 115, 151, 157, 168.]

         2.  He asserts a spiritual and marvelous change thereby made in the elements, but not destroying either their substance or their figure: a change of qualities, and a melioration, as it were, of the substance itself, by the powerful operation of the Holy Ghost and the supervening of the Logos [Ibid. idem, pp. 30, etc. 75, 82, 83, 86, 146.  Patr. Consens. pp. 54, 69, 100, 157, 185.]: on account of which change, he talks frequently of the elements as passing into the virtue of Christ’s body and blood. [Ibid. idem, pp. 32, 35, 39, 45, 47, 53, 74, 79, 105.]  Sometimes he calls it passing into the flesh of Christ, or substance of his body: but then he interprets it to mean, not the personal body or substance, but another very like it, or near akin to it in virtue; which he denominates a spiritual body, to distinguish it from the natural and personal body. [Harch. Concord. pp. 33, 35, 39, 45, 53, 74, 105.  Patr. Consens. p. 69.]

         3.  He makes this pretended spiritual body sometimes the body of the Divine Spirit, meaning Christ’s own Divine Hypostasis [Harch. Concord. pp. 15, 16.  Patr. Consens. pp. 28, 42, 47, 69.]; sometimes, the body of the Word and Spirit together [Ibid.  Patr. Consens. pp. 29, 42, 46, 48, 53, 69, 98, 114, 128, 180.]; and sometimes of the Divine essence, or whole Trinity. [Ibid.  Concord. pp. 31, 48, 70, 74.  Patr. Consens. pp. 91, 167, 172, 182, 183.]

         4.  But as he could not admit of a personal union* between the Deity and the bread body, without calling it Christ, and Lord, and God, he was content to call it a creature, but a most noble creature [Ibid. idem, pp. 36, 37, 38, 75, 76, 82, 83.]; an image of the natural body, but not full and adequate; extremely like it in power and energy, but not perfectly equal [Ibid. idem, pp. 36, 38, 53, 54, 65, 94, 95.  Patr. Consens. pp. 68, 79, 91, 117, 250.]: a true, and holy, and Divine, but inanimate figure, while full of the Word, and of the Spirit, and of grace, and of life. [Ibid.  Patr. Consens. pp. 68, 76, 85, 90, 91, 92, 93, 112, 131, 147.]

         *[[“Dat ergo nobis Christus in hoc Sacramento duplicem spiritum suum, existens verus Elias.  In pane quidem spiritum proprium verbum ipsum et Dei sapientiam in vino spiritum qui a Patre procedit et Filio: in utroque vero essentiam totius heatae Trinitatis. Harch. p. 182.  Patr. Consens.]]

         5.  He supposed two true bodies of Christ; one in heaven above, another in the Eucharist below: one natural, and eaten by contemplation and faith at all times; the other spiritual, and eaten in the Eucharist both with mind and with mouth. [Ibid.  Concord. pp. 27, 55, 70, 81.]  He conceived them to be so nearly the same thing, that they might be reckoned as one flesh, but yet considering that there was some inequality, he rather chose to make them two. [Ibid.  Patr. Consens. pp. 215, 216.]

         6.  He maintained an infusion of the Divine essence, [Ibid. Concord. pp. 31, 48, 7o, 74. Patr. Consens. pp. 74, 76.] or of Christ, [Ibid. Concord. pp. 28, 31, 39, 48. Patr. Consens. pp. 74, 77, 225.] or of some virtue of Christ’s flesh, [Ibid. Patr. Consens. pp. 128, 182, 209, 215.] into the elements: an inhabitation [Harch. Concord. pp. 56, 57, 63, 68, 74.  Patr. Consens. pp. 50, 91.] also, and union, [Ibid. idem, pp. 15, 57, 71.  Patr. Consens. pp. 46, 48, 50, 58, 68, 70, 71, 91, 121.] and mixture [Ibid.  Patr. Consens. pp. 28, 126, 131, 134, 181, 193, 204.] with the same.

         7.  He once supposed, that the spiritual body in the Eucharist is not so fully or perfectly Christ’s body as every good Christian is [Ibid.  Concord. pp. 25, 48, 60, 64.]; but he appears to have changed his mind afterwards, upon a supposal that the fullness of the Godhead resides in the elements, and not ordinarily in good men. [Ibid.  Patr. Consens. pp. 91, 154.]

         8.  He supposed the spiritual body to be the vicarious substitute of the natural; not equal in power or virtue, but approximate. [Ibid. idem, pp. 85, 112, 173, 174, 176.]

         9.  The spiritual body, not being hypostatically united with the Divinity, [Ibid. Concord. pp. 37, 63, 68, 86, 87, 105.  Patr. Consens. pp. 54, 91, 126, 173.] has no title in his scheme (as he supposed) to formal adoration; but must be reverenced only, or highly venerated. [Ibid. idem, pp. 59, 60, 106.  Patr. Consens. pp. 52, 53, 54, 65, 130, 213, 217, 262.]

         10.  He supposed the elements to contain within them the grace of Christ’s body, the nature of the word and Spirit, and the essential powers of Christ’s body in a permanent way, abiding as long as the elements may serve for food. [Ibid. idem, p. 89.  Patr. Consens. pp. 64, 83, 102, 175, 209, 213, 228.]

         11.  He imagined brutes, upon devouring the elements, to devour them only: but unworthy communicants are supposed to receive the Deity besides, but as a judge and an avenger; as a burning coal, or a consuming fire, not to save, but to destroy them. [Ibid. idem, pp. 41, 56, 71, 72, 87, 88.  Patr. Consens. pp. 61, 139, 140, 141, 175, 212.]

         12.  He maintained an oral manducation (as of course he must) of the eternal Word, of the Divine substance, and of essential grace. [Ibid. idem, p. 15.  Patr. Consens. pp. 82, 93, 138, 151, 154, 174, 201, 212.]

         13.  As to the sacrifice, he was reasonably modest and cautious in his first piece.  He lashed the Romanists on that head, all the way, and blamed some Protestants, but with tenderness,* not denying them or others their just commendations. [Legite, O pontificii, Liturgiam Justini, et putabitis institutam fuisse a Calvino.  Legite et eam quae fertur Jacobi, et quid, precor, differt ab ea quam instituit Lutherus? Ibid. p. 132.]  He speaks handsomely of the first English Liturgy, as coming very near to the primitive, and particularly admires their form of consecration, beseeching God to sanctify the gifts with his Holy Spirit and Word. [Harch. Concord. pp. 45, 146.]  He insisted much upon self-sacrifice, and the sacrifice of alms, and the memorial of our Lord’s passion. [Ibid. idem, pp. 52, 120, 131, 132, 133, 138, 139, 143, 147, 148, 158, 161, 167, 168, 171, 176.]  He expressed some contempt of a bread sacrifice, a sacrifice of signs and shadows. [Ibid, idem, pp. 120, 139, 143, 147, 155, 157, 158.]  Had he said, signs and shadows of a sacrifice, rather than sacrifice of signs, he had said better.  However, he observed, that a sacrifice of bread and wine is never mentioned in Scripture, no, nor in the Fathers; except in such a qualified sense as Irenaeus speaks of.**  He had a particular fancy that the elements should first be made food of and then sacrificed from within: for so he hoped to avoid all extrinsic sacrifice (condemned by Scripture), and to account the better for the order of the words of institution. [Ibid. idem, pp. 171, 174, 175.]  Besides, it would suit the more aptly with another fancy of his, viz. that though the elements were the body of the Logos before manducation, yet they were not the body of Christ, God-man, till eaten and converted into human flesh.***

         *[“Ne quis putet in posterum in Coena Domini nullum esse sacrificium: quod ab Evangelicis aliquot doleo nimis impudenter negatum, aut omissum, neque in catechismis explicatum. Harch. Concord. p. 132.]

         **[“De panis et vini hostia nusquam leges in Scripturis, imo neque in Patribus; nisi ea ratione offeramus panem et ejusmodi visibilia, quae Irenaeus vocat creaturas, ut non appareamus in conspectu Dei aut vacui aut ingrati. Harch. Concord. p. 171.]

         ***[Etiamsi panis Eucharistiae sit virtute caro Christi, et realiter corpus Verbi ante manducationem, tamen ut fiat actu vera caro, debet prius manducari, et nutritionis lege in carnis formam converti. Harch. Concord. p. 80.]

         14.  In his second treatise he altered his notion of the sacrifice more ways than one: whether disgusted with the Protestants for slighting his kind offices, or whether further instructed, it is certain, that he came much nearer to the Popish sacrifice, and brought severer charges than before, both against Lutherans and Calvinists, as casting off the visible sacrifice of the Church. [Harch. Patr. Consens. pp. 38, 39, 40, 234, 270, etc.  281, 282, 285.]  He forgot his former speculations about the sacrifice following the manducation; for now he made it go before. [Ibid. idem. pp. 79, 274, 275.]  And whereas formerly he had disowned any propitiatory sacrifice, [Ibid. Concord. pp. 132, 143, 161.] content with gratulatory, after the Protestant way, he now made it properly propitiatory, inventing a colour for it, viz. that Christ himself consecrates by the minister, fills the elements with the Logos and Spirit, is present with them, and offered by himself in them and with them.*

         *[Ibid. idem, pp. 240, 263.  “In hoc pane praesens et oblatus, p. 264.  Hostia offertur, et grata est Patri, et simul propitiatoria: non ex se, sed oblata per Christum,” p. 300.  [Yet he blames the Papists in strong terms, p. 232 of the same treatise, of 1576.  “Veritatem ipsam pro imagine praetendunt et signum adorant simpliciter pro signato.  Et cum corpus Christi (quod est ecclesia per eucharistiae panem figurata) debuissent et commendasse et obtulisse Deo patri, per Christum, ipsum Christum Deo patri commendant, et eum pro proprio et novo Ecclesiae sacrificio, se in manibus tenere, hic in terra vere carneum, cruentum, osseumque, et ore comedere persuadent: parum memores illius Origenis in Leviticum dicentis: jejunans debes adire pontificem Christum, qui utique non in terra quaerendus est, sed in caelo, et per ipsum debes offerre Deo hostiam. Harch. Patr. Consens. p. 232.  “Christus spiritualis offertur mente et manu re vera: at Christus homo carneus et animatus offertur sola mente, per ipsius symbola, panem et vinum. p. 240.  “Quemve non reddet Deo Patri propitium unigenitus Dei Filius in hoc pane praesens et oblatus? p. 264.]]

         15.  As to our Lord’s own sacrifice in the original Eucharist, he supposed him to have offered up that spiritual body there made, that compound body of spirit and element: or else perhaps he offered up his own natural body to the Father, as it were in effigy, under the symbols of bread and wine. [Christus in pane et vino accipiens, ut homo, a Patre corpus et sanguinem,Verbi scilicet aeterni et Spiritus, obtulit illa eadem Deo Patri ad gratiarum actionem, agnoscens beneficium vel in pane et vino obtulit, tanquam in symbolis, corpus suum proprium, sequenti die crucifigendum.”  Harch. Patr. Consens. pp. 273, 274.]

         16.  His construction of the words of institution may be worth the noting as a particularity.  He interprets the words, “This is my body given for you,” as if our Lord had said, “This is my spiritual body, given me by my Father, for your consolation and conservation.”*  A construction scarce tolerable, if there had not been worse invented for the same words, to serve the like purposes.

         *[Accipite hoc meum corpus, Divini mei Spiritus, quod mihi datur pro vobis a Patre meo, ad vestram consolationem, justificationem, vivificationem, conservationem.”  Harch. Patr. Consens. p. 28. cp. p. 29]

         I beg pardon, if I have been tedious in recounting the rovings of that learned gentleman; which may have their use, and which were not so much owing to the weakness of the writer (for I much question whether any one else could have performed better in that way), as to the weakness of the principle which he had the misfortune to set out with.  Whoever else should take in hand to enrich the elements, either with what belongs to us, or with what belongs to God only, could not reasonably expect to succeed any better than that ingenious writer did.  He is to be commended however for adhering to the sacrifice of the cross, [Harch. Concord. p. 133.] and for allowing that the faithful partake of Christ’s body “extra coenam,” [Ibid. idem, pp. 31, 80, 82, 91.  Patr. Consens. pp. 142, 228, 229.] and that the ancient Patriarchs feasted upon the same spiritual food that we do now. [Ibid. Patr. Consens. pp. 200, 201, 202.]  In other points where he judged ill, he appears to have intended well: for he certainly had a warm zeal for God, loved religion (or what he esteemed such), and had firmness enough to submit to a kind of voluntary exile for it; as he has left upon record.*

         *[Harch. Concord. in dedicatione.  Mention also is made of a piece of his, printed in 1573, with this title: “De Causis Haeresis, proque ejus Exilio, et Concordia Controversiarum in Religione, Haereticorum, Pontificiorum, et Poenitentium, Oratio ad Deum Patrem.”  Gesner, Epit. p. 515.  This I have at second hand from Mr. Bayle, in the French Supplement to his Dictionary, in the article “Harchius”.]

         What the Protestants, in general, thought of his first performance, and how coldly they received his reconciling scheme,* he has himself declared in his preface to the second.  They were offended, it seems, with him, for mistaking his talents, and meddling out of his sphere; they approved not of his interposing, without judgment, in theological debates, and admonished him to return to the business of his own profession.  The Romanists were either silent, or more favourable in their censures, so far as appears: and he was suspected, by some of the Lutheran way, to incline more to the Popish than to the Protestant interests.**  He was very impatient for some answer, thinking it a tribute of respect due to himself or to the subject: but he lived not to see any.  Beza was preparing one,*** which appeared at length in the year 1580, some time after Harchius’s decease.  Beza had been dilatory in that matter, under a serious persuasion that such remote and fanciful speculations might best be left to die of themselves.  But being at last overruled by friends, he submitted to undertake the work; as he tells us himself. [Beza contr. Harch. p. 4.  8vo. ed. alias p. 148. fol. ed.]  He complains frequently of the author’s laboured obscurity, and of the difficulty of ascertaining his true and full meaning. [Ibid. pp. 5, 49, 60, 147, 148. edit. prima.]  But to prevent any suspicion of unfairness, and to enable the readers to judge for themselves, he collected a competent number of passages out of Harchius’s first treatise, and prefixed them to his own, filling more than forty pages with them.

         *[Conabar dissentientes inter se Evangelicos appellatos (Lutheranos inquam), et Calvinistas, sive Zuinglianos, conciliare. ... Sed tantum abest ut ex meis bus ullam reportorim gratiam, ut ambobus in sua opinione licet dissimillima haerentibus, ambo me veluti risui et contemptui habentes, ad medicae meae professionis arenam indignabundi relegarint. Harch. Patr. Consens. in praefat.]

         **[Quomodo pontificii me exceperint, vix possum conjecturis assequi, contra quos tamen potissimum omnia argumentorum meorum tela dirigebantur. ... Verum quomodocunque in ea re mecum sentiant aut dissentiant pontificii, relatione tamen postmodum accepi, me potius pontificium quam Evangelicum, ab Evangelicis aliquot esse judicatum. Harch. ibid.]

         ***[De Coena Domini, adversus Jodoci Harchii Montensis Dogmata, Theodori Bezae Responsio. Genevae. 1580. pages 8vo. 160.  Reprinted in folio, among the Tractatus Theologici (two volumes) A.D. 1582.  Genevae. From p. 148 to p. 186.]

         After these preliminaries, he fell directly upon the leading error of the whole system: which was the making the elements receptacles either of the eternal Word or Spirit, or of some Divine power or grace, supposed to be infused into them, inherent in them, intrinsic to them, and permanent with them.  He calls it a most grievous error, full of impiety:* a notion altogether unscriptural and absurd [Beza, p. 66.]; yea, and wilder than either consubstantiation or transubstantiation, which it aimed to correct.**  He proceeds to confute it at large, in a strong, masterly way, worthy of his great abilities.  I shall endeavour to give you a taste of his performance, in a few particulars; though it must be a great disadvantage to it, to appear as it were in miniature, when the whole is so close and concise: but it is necessary, in a manner, to give some kind of summary view of it.

         *[Teterrimum, et plane cum manifesta impietate conjunctum errorem, p. 52.  “Nego igitur et pernego Deitatem, aut vim ullam Divinam in ipsa signa infundi: et impium esse hoc dogma rursum dico, eo sensu quo loquitur et scribit Harchius; non quo locuti sunt Patres, quorum sententiam penitus depravat. Beza, p. 71.]

         **[Harchius magis etiam ineptam sententiam tuetur: qui ut corporis naturalis localem praesentiam excluclat, Deitatem ipsius Verbi ex carne assnmpta in panem illapsam, velit intra ipisum panem habitare, adeoque ipsi re ipsa uniri et permisceri, pp. 66, 67.]

         1.  He observes, that the system proposed, under colour of magnifying the signs one way, really lessened and depreciated them another way, as making them bare memorials of what they ought spiritually to exhibit, namely, of the natural body, being in that respect made mere signs (as any picture might be),* rather than exhibitive signs.  And though he endeavoured, another way, to give more honour to the signs than really belonged to them, yet he destroyed the very nature of signs by doing it, and made quite another thing of them, viz. receptacles of the Divinity, not exhibitive signs or symbols of the humanity:** which, in effect, was excluding the thing signified out of the Sacrament, and seeking salvation independently on Christ’s humanity;*** thereby subverting the economy of man’s redemption, which stands in our mystical union with the human nature of Christ. [Vid. Beza, pp. 96, 97, 123, etc.]

         *[Docemus Sacramentorum significationem, diviuitus institutam, neque nudam esse, qualis est pictarum imaginum et aliorum ejusmodi vulgarium signorum, sed cum ipsa rerum significatarum praebitione conjunctam.”  Beza, p. 50.  “Nimium profecto, parce et jejune de isto signorum genere loquitur, cum ea _________ tantum vocat, quod quam pictis imaginibus convenit. Beza, p. 51.]

         **[Quamvis enim postea plus etiam illis quam nos tribuere videatur, nedum ut illa extenuet: si quis tamen rem totam propius inspiciat, comperiet omnem signorum rationem ab ipso aboleri: ut qui panem illum et vinum illud, non corporis illius pro nobis traditi, et sanguinis illius pro nobis effusi signa, sed ipsius essentialis aeterni Filii Dei conceptacula esse contendat. Beza, p. 51.]

         ***[Neque enim mine quaerimus, plus an minus in his vel illis detur, sed an idem detur, id est, illa ipsa Christi humanitas.  Si hoc negatis, ergo extra Christi humanitatem salutem quaeritis. Beza, p. 95.]

         2.  Beza observes further, at large, that it is manifestly wrong to interpret “body given for you,” and “blood shed,” of anything but the natural body and blood signified in the Eucharist, and therein also mystically or spiritually given and received. [Beza, pp. 67, 68, 69, 70, 89, 90.]

         3.  Against inherent graces, virtues, powers, etc. he pleads, that to suppose pardon-giving, grace-giving, life-giving powers to be lodged in the elements, is transferring Divine powers from their proper seat, where only they can reside, to things altogether incapable of sustaining them or receiving them: in short, it is communicating to inanimate creatures the incommunicable attributes, properties, or powers of God.*

         *[Spiritualia ac diviva (cujusmodi incorporatio in Christum, et in eodem collatum justificationis, sanctificationis, et tandem glorificationis, seu vitae aeternae donum) per alium, ut ullo modo efficientem causam, si quis nobis tribui existimet; aut rerum Divinarum prorsus est imperitus, aut plane impius ut qui quod unius Del est incommunicabiliter, tam proprium quam ipsa Deitas, ad panem et vinum, res inanimatas, transferat, aut certe cum illis communicet. Beza, pp. 70, 71: conf. 114, 115, 130136.  [Chamier, Panstrat. vol. iv. pp. 91, 93.  Hooker, book v. n. 57, 67.]]

         4.  He enforces his plea by observing, that it is attributing more to the signs, than to the Word of God which makes them signs, and of which as high things are predicated in Scripture, but without any supposal of an inherent or intrinsic power infused into, or lodged in the sounds or syllables. [Beza, pp. 133, 134, 135.]

         5.  He enforces it still further by observing, that it is attributing more to the inanimate elements than could be justly ascribed to the Apostles or others who wrought miracles; not by any inherent or intrinsic powers infused into them, but by the sole power of God extrinsic to them. [Ibid. pp. 75, 76, 77, 132, 133, 134.]

         6.  He adds, that it is ascribing more to the bread and wine, the sacramental body, than could be justly ascribed even to our Lord’s own natural body considered in itself, or abstracted from his Divinity, the only proper seat or subject of such powers. [Ibid. pp. 77, 78, 79, 134.]  He dwells upon this topic, as well to guard it from cavil and misconstruction, as to imprint it the deeper on the minds of his readers, being indeed singly sufficient and unanswerable, when rightly understood.  For if even a personal union makes not the humanity of Christ life-giving in itself, or so as to become the proper seat or subject of such powers,* much less can any supposed union of the Logos or of the Spirit with the elements make them the subject or seat of life-giving powers.**  If it should be pleaded, that a healing virtue went out of Christ’s body, [See Mark 5:30.  Luke 6:19, 8:46.] even that would not reach the case, were it really fact; since healing virtues and grace-giving powers are widely different.  But the texts say not that virtue went out of his body, but out of him, or from him: neither is it said, that he felt in his body, but that he knew in himself; knew that a miraculous operation [_______] had gone forth from him; which was said, to intimate that a miraculous virtue or power really resided in him, as God-man, but in no man else. [Cognoscens divinum opus a se patratum.”  Vid. Olearius in Matt. pp. 275, 276.  Wolfius, Cur. Crit. in loc.]

         *[___ ___ ________ ____ ____, ____ [____] ___Ļ____.  Theod. Dial. p. 184.  “Caro Christi per se vivifica non est, sed vivificandi vim a Spiritu cui juncta est, id est, a Divinitate mutuatur.”  Albertinus, p. 341: cp. 758.  [Sadeel, pp. 145, 203, 421.]]

         **[N.B.  The man Christ (according to the rule of “communicatio idiomatum,” and after the personal way of speaking) may be said to be God, Life-giver, etc.  But as the human nature cannot be said to be the Divine nature, so neither can it be said to be efficiently or properly life-giving.  Much less can it be said of the elements, which are not so much as hypostatically united, nor can claim any benefit from the rule of “communicatio idiomatum,” or from the use of personal phrases.]

         I return to Beza.

         7.  He takes occasion to expose the doctrine of an oral manducation of Christ, or of the Spirit, as palpably absurd. [Beza, pp. 86, etc., 100.]

         8.  He more particularly exposes the notion of the unworthy’s receiving the “res Sacramenti,” the grace of the Sacrament, and not with any benefit, but to certain destruction.  A contradiction to all the Scripture phrases in that article, phrases of a kind and gracious import, words of favour, and blessing, and comfort; and such as will no more admit of a destructive meaning, than light, or life, or health, or peace, or immortality can admit of it. [Ibid. pp. 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, [172.  Rivet. t. ii. 136.  Hooker, book v. n. 67.  Towerson, 245.]]  Indeed, Christ is offered both to worthy and unworthy in the holy Communion: and to the former, who receive him, he is a life-giver and preserver, while to the latter, who reject him, he is a judge and avenger.  Still Christ received is always health, and life, and blessing to the receiver:* and it, is Christ rejected, not Christ received, who becomes to every unworthy communicant both a judge and a revenger.**  This reasoning appears to be just and solid: and it is worth observing, that, after the latest refinements in this article, by the help of a distinction between external and internal eating [[The same distinction was observed for the same purpose.  G. Paschat. Radhert, p. 1568.]] of the same enriched body, [See Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. pp. 208, 351–356.] yet the difficulty remains as before, and cannot be evaded.  For unless the unworthy (who are the external eaters) are supposed externally and orally to eat both the bread and the grace, they cannot he said to eat the body, which is supposed to mean and to consist of both, and is not the enriched body, if either be wanting.  All that can be made out, in that way, is, that the unworthy eat one part of the pretended spiritual body, and not the other part; they eat the gross part, viz. the bread, not the finer, viz., the grace: which, in other words, is saying, that they eat not the body; and therefore the distinction so applied destroys itself.  The plain truth is, that nothing but the sign is externally eaten, and nothing but the thing signified is eaten internally: therefore to imagine an external or an internal eating both of sign and thing, confounded in one, and called a spiritual body, is joining together incompatible ideas.***  But I pass on.

         *[Omnes quidem manum et os afferentes symbola recipiunt, mens vero vera fide non praedita rem Sacramenti repudiat: ac proinde reus non fit talis quispiam indigne sumpti corporis et sanguinis Domini, (nisi per corpus et sanguinem ipsa illorum symbola metonymia sacramentali intelligas,) sed corporis et sanguinis Domini contempti, et per incredulitatem repudiati. ... Usque adeo conjuncta sunt et connexa vita et caro Christi, quoniam caro Filii Dei est, ut neque vitae particeps esse quisquam extra illius carnis, unici vinculi nostrae cum vita colligationis, participationem possit, neque quisquam illius esse particeps, sive in Verbo, sive in Sacramentis, qui ex ea non vivificetur: et qui contrarium statuunt, Christum dividant: de quibus quid statuendum sit, docet Spiritus Sanctus, 1 John 4:3. Beza, ibid. p. 103.  Cp. Beza contr. Pappum de Unione hypostatica, pp. 138, 139, 140.]

         **[Christus igitur ipse, tum in Verbo, tum in Sacramentis, eos quidem a quibus sumitur, id est, fideles, vivificat: incredulos autern non receptus, sed repudiatus judicat.”  Beza contr. Papp. p. 140.]

         ***[[“Duplex est homo, qui comedit, externus et internus: duplex manducatio, qua comeditur, externa et interna,: duplex etiam cibus qui comeditur, externus et internus: externus cibus ab externo homine, externa, manducatione comeditur: internus ab interno interna manducatione participatur. Salmasius, p. 426.]]

         9.  Beza takes notice how Harchius’s system might lay a foundation for bread worship, stronger and firmer than even the Popish one does, because of the union or mixture of essential Divinity with the elements, which it introduces and rests upon. [Beza, pp. 146, 147.]  He adds, that it would go near to destroy the “sursum corda,” the lifting up of the heart, so much and so justly celebrated by the ancients.  For if the elements really contain such immense treasures, what need have we to look up to the natural body above?  Or what have we to do but to look down to those impanated riches, to the elements ennobled with all graces and virtues, and replenished with that very Divinity which makes the humanity so considerable? [Beza, p. 147.]

         10.  When Beza came to answer on the head of sacrifice, he appeared to be much concerned at Harchius’s unfair and ungenerous dealing, in reviving stale accusations against Protestants, without so much as taking notice of the strong and repeated replies. [Ibid. p. 152.]  He avers solemnly, that the reformed had been so far from discarding the eucharistic sacrifice, that they only had most strictly preserved it, or rather retrieved it, fixing it upon its true and ancient basis.  Therefore he resented Harchius’s misreport, in this article, as a grievous calumny [Cum totidem illa constet a nobis diligenter fieri, calumniator in eo deprehendetur, quod sacrificium a nobis sublatum esse dicat. Beza, p. 153.] upon the Protestant name, since the Protestants had not rejected all sacrifice, no nor so much as a visible sacrifice in the Eucharist.*

         *[Quo sensu veteres Coenam Domini sacrificium vocarint, apertissime liquet.  Ostendat autem Harchius ecquid tandem istorum in nostris ecclesiis praetermittatur; et tunc a nobis visibile sacrificium abolitum esse Beza, p. 155.]

         This was the turn that Beza gave to that matter; and it was the right turn, made use of before by Bucer in 1546.  For Bucer was so far from submitting to the injurious charge of discarding the sacrifice, that he retorted that very charge, and justly, upon the accusers themselves: not merely pleading, in behalf of the Protestants against the Romanists, that we have a sacrifice as well as they, but that we only had kept it, and that they had lost it, or however had so lamentably depraved or smothered it, that what remained of it was next to none.*  This he said, and this he proved, beyond all reasonable contradiction.  They must be very little acquainted with those two excellent men, Bucer and Beza, who can suspect that they admitted of no sacrifice but mental or vocal only: for they were firm and constant friends to the Christian sacrifice, rightly understood; to external sacrifice,** and that principally in the Eucharist, as all the Fathers were.  Had but the Protestant Divines, as many as came after them, been as careful and accurate as they were in the stating the main question, and as constant in abiding by it, many intricate disputes which have since risen might have been happily prevented.  For, indeed, the great question between the Romanists and us,*** is not whether the Eucharist be a proper, or a visible, or an external sacrifice, but whether it be an extrinsic sacrifice or no; and whether their Eucharist or ours is that Gospel sacrifice which our Lord instituted, and which all antiquity acknowledged.  It will be found, upon just inquiry, that our eucharistic sacrifice is the true one, and that their bread sacrifice (for it is really no better, fiction set aside) is as much a corruption, though not altogether so novel or so dangerous a corruption, as their bread worship.  But I return.

         *[Demonstrabo haec ipsa veteris Ecclesiae, et S. Patrum sacrificia nos vere offerre et sacrificare: vestros vero sacrificulos illa cuncta a missis suis omnique sua adininistratione aut prorsus removisse, aut certe pervertisse, ut auctoritatibus omnibus S. Patrum extremae impietatis convincantur et condemnentur. Bucer contr. Latom. lib. ii. p. 146.  “Planum faciam in nostris ecclesiis restituta esse cum genera omnia sacrificiorum et oblationum quae offerre vetus Ecclesia solita est ... deinde ostendam Ecclesiae veteris sacrificia et oblationes per vestros sacrificos aut esse omnino sublata, aut penitus perversa.”  Bucer, ibid. p. 246.  Cp. pp. 144, 261.]

         **[External sacrifice has been owned, not only by Bucer and Beza, but by Hooper, Jewel, Bilson, Fulke, Zanchius, Chrastovius, Mornaeus, Scharpius, Field, Spalatensis, Montague, Lany, Patrick, and many more, who yet admitted none but spiritual sacrifice: neither do I know that any of the old Protestant Divines ever rejected external sacrifice, but in the sense of extrinsic, in which both Scripture and Fathers reject it.  N.B.  Extrinsic sacrifice means something “ab extra,” as a goat, a lamb, a loaf, all extrinsic to us: intrinsic is what proceeds “ab intus,” from within ourselves; as all our true services do, whether internal and invisible, or external and visible: and therefore if all true services are properly sacrifices, there must of consequence be some visible, external sacrifices.  But we ought carefully to note how the ancient writers used words or phrases.  If I mistake not, Lactantius and Austin rejected all visible sacrifice, admitting none but invisible, under the Gospel: but then they meant by invisible, the same with intrinsic; and they call it invisible with respect to its invisible source, as it comes from within.]

         ***[[“Missa, sicubi a sacerdote celebrari solet, neque sacrificium propitians est, neque laudis aut gratiarum actionis, neque Deo accepta aut probata, sed horribilis et detestabilis res, de qua Servatoris illud verissime dici poterit.  Quod celsum est coram hominibus, id abominandum est coram Deo. Cranmer, Defens. Doctrin. de Sacramento, p. 150.]]

         From the time of Beza’s answer, Harchius and his system have been very little mentioned: both seem to have been almost buried in oblivion for a hundred and twenty years or more.  Only Mr. Bale takes notice [In the Supplement to Bayle’s Dictionary, or in the last French edition, in the article Harchius.] of some slight mention made of Harchius, by Rivet, in some letters to MilitiŹre, alias Brachet, in the last century.  Indeed the Romanists, since that time, have sometimes invidiously and insidiously charged the Protestants as interpreting the words of institution to such a sense as either to make two personal bodies of Christ, or to imagine some other fictitious body, substituted as the “res sacramenti,” instead of the natural.  The Protestants rejected the injurious aspersion with disdain, resenting it as a great reproach, to be so much as suspected of any such thing [Vid. Cliamier, Panstrat. tom. iv. pp. 528, 529.]; but insisting upon it, in the strongest manner, that the words, “this is my body,” and “this is my blood,” could not reasonably be interpreted of anything else but the natural body and blood, represented, and sacramentally exhibited, in the holy Communion.*

         [Quaeritur ergo, quid sit corpus meum, sanguis meus.  Nos candide, et libere, ac libenter respondemus, ____ __ _____ interpretandum, cum Hesychio in Levitici xxii ... est igitur corpus illud; id est, solida substantia humanae naturae, quam assumptam in utero Virginis circumtulit in hypostasi sua Verbum; quam cruci affixam, et in sepulchro depositam suscitavit a mortuis ... quam denique transtulit in caelos, inde reddendam terris postremo adventu. Chamier, Panstrat. tom. iv. p. 528.]

         From the accounts now laid before you, my Reverend Brethren, I take the liberty to observe, that some late notions of the Eucharist appear to be little else but the remains of that confusion which first began in the decline of the seventh century: and the fundamental error of all lies in the want of a right notion of symbolical language, as before hinted.  Hence it is that signs have been supposed either literally to be, or literally to enclose, the very things signified, viz. the Divine body, or the Divine graces, virtues, or powers.  Beza cleared up what concerned the latter with great acumen and force: and the whole question has been. more minutely discussed since by several able hands;* but more especially by the very acute and learned Chamier, who has in reality exhausted the question, both historically and argumentatively, in his disputes against the Romanists. [Chamier, Panstrat. tom. iv. pp. 5196.]

         *[Hooker, book v. chap. 57, 60, 67.  Gasp. Laurentius, Defens. Sadeelis, p. 382, etc.  Rivet. Cathol. Orth. tom. ii. p. 5, etc.  Vossius de Sacram. Vi et Efficacia.  Le Blanc, Thes. p. 253.  Preservative against Popery, vol. ii. tit. 7. p. 32.  Albertinus, p. 503.  [Davenant, Determ. p. 108.  Salmasius, p. 249, etc.  Ward, Determ. p. 62.  Spalatensis, 910.]]

         I may note by the way, that the Romanists, from the time of the Trent Council, [Si quis dixerit Sacramenta novae legis non continere gratiam quam significant, ... anathema sit.”  Concil. Trident. sess. vii. can. 6.] have commonly maintained some kind of physical efficiency in the outward sacraments, together with inherent graces as infused into the elements: though some of their ablest Divines have scarce known what to make of the Trent doctrine on that head, but have in a manner given up the thing, contending merely for words or names.  Cardinal Allen, one of the shrewdest of them, saw the absurdity of the notion, and exposed it: being aware how ridiculous it would be, to imagine any inherent or intrinsic powers to have been infused into clay and spittle, into handkerchiefs and aprons, or into St. Peter’s shadow:* neither durst Bellarmine afterwards be at all positive on that head. [Non esse controversiam de modo quo Sacramenta sunt causae, an physice, etc. ... et rursum si physice, an per aliquam qualitatem inhaerentem, an per solam Dei motionem. Bellarm. lib. ii. cap. 1. p. 30.]  But yet both of them were minded to contrive some verbal evasion, whereby to make a show of maintaining what in reality they had yielded up.  They pretended I know not what Divine movement, raising or enabling the elements to produce the effect: which was somewhat like the subtlety of those who, not knowing how to ascribe thought to matter, as such, either added motion to matter, or had recourse to Divine omnipotence, to salve the hypothesis.  Only there is this difference between the two cases that thought is a communicable attribute, which a creature may have; but a grace-giving power is incommunicable, and can reside only in a Divine Being.  Gerard Vossius has well observed,** that the evasion before mentioned was a mere evasion: and indeed it amounts only to so many unmeaning words, artfully thrown together as a fine-spun covering, to hide the flaws of a false hypothesis.  Be the Divine movement what it will, it can never shake God’s attributes from his essence, or his incommunicable powers from his nature, so as to transfer or impart them to a foreign subject.  God may cooperate with the elements, so as to affect the soul, while they affect the body: but his operations and powers, though assistant or concurrent, are not inherent or intermingled, but are entirely distinct; and are as truly extrinsic to the elements, as the Deity is to the creature.  When and where the elements are duly administered and received, God does then and there work the effect, pursuant to his promise and covenant.***  The elements are the occasional causes, as it were, and he the efficient: this is the whole of that matter.

         *[Noli putare id Patres dicere, quasi sit aliqua permanens qualitas a Deo infusa Sacramento, aut ejus materiae, cum ea qualitas neque spiritualis, neque corporalis esse possit.  Nam si corporalis esset, nihil adjuvaret ad spiritualem effectum maxis quam ipsa natura aquae: et spiritualis qualitas non potest inesse in corpore tanquam in subjecto.  Sed id volunt, hanc esse virtutem Sacramentorum, ordinari, moveri, applicari, elevari a Deo ad effectum spiritualem ... Christus accipiendo lutum aut salivam, non impressit illis, multo minus umbrae Petri, aliquam qualitatem medicam; sed utendo, ac applicando, elevavit eas, ad quascunque sanitates producendas: cum ipsae qualitates sanativas actu inhaerentes atque stabiles non haberent. Alanus de Euchar. p. 130.  Compare my Review, above.]

         **[Commentum hoc de effectu ab actionis vi orto, nec tamen a vi interna ejus, cujus actio est, profecto merum ___________ est, eademque facilitate, qua citra probationem ullam affertur, etiam rejici debet. Vossius de Sacram. Vi et Efficacia, p. 253.  [Cp. Davenant, Determin. 23. pp. 108, 109.  Ward, Determ. pp. 62, 44.]]

         ***[Effectum non attingunt proprie, sed operari dicuntur, quia ubi sunt, Deus juxta promissionem suam operatur, et concurrit ad productionem effectus supernaturalis. Albertinus, p. 503.  “Res ipsa quae unitur nobiscum in conjunctione spirituali, nequaquam cum illis signis unitur: alioqui sacramentalis etiam haec unio [unio pacti] esset dicenda spiritualis; quae ipsa quoque signa vivificaret; et signa ipsa sacramentalia non amplius essent instrumenta, sed ipsa forent causa efficiens et formalis: quod est _________, et naturae Sacramentorum, atque Spiritus Sancti energiae, fideique proprietati omnino repugnans. Gasp. Laurent. Index. Error. Greg. de Valent. in Opp. Sadeel. p. 382.  [Nos non dicimus sacramenta, conferre gratiam per unam illis inditam aut vim aut qualitatem (sive naturalem, sive supernaturalem) quod est gratiam conferre per modum causae physicae: sed dicuntur, ex nostrae Ecclesiae sententia, efficacia gratiae signa, quia divina virtus hisce sacramentis ad producendum gratiae effectum, certo et infallibiliter ex tenore foederis et Christi promissione, assistit, ut viz. rationem habeant causae sine qua non, vel potius causae instrumentalis, generaliter dictae, instrumentum morale vocant. Sam. Ward, Determ. p. 44.]]

         If what hath been said may be thought sufficient to vindicate the received doctrine of this Sacrament, as a sacrament, then the other notion of it, together with the bread sacrifice built upon it, must fall of course: and we may reasonably rest contented with what our excellent Church has all along taught us, both of the sacrament and sacrifice: which in truth is no other doctrine but what the New Testament, and the Fathers of the Church from the beginning, and downwards for six whole centuries, have delivered: here fix we, and abide.  And that the reasonableness of our so abiding may yet more clearly and more succinctly appear, I beg leave here to throw in a few pertinent considerations, for a kind of recapitulation of what I have before said.

         1.  Let it be considered what pains have been taken some way or other to enrich and ennoble a bread sacrifice, in order to make it bear, or to suit it to a Gospel state, and yet none of the ways will answer upon a strict trial; unless we could be content to rest in words which have no consistent or no determined ideas.  Shall we fill the elements with Divinity, like as our Lord’s personal body is filled?*  A vain thought!  But supposing it were fact, yet shall we sacrifice the Divine essence, or any of the Divine persons?  God forbid.  Yet Harchius, in his way, was forced to admit of that absurdity, in order to make out his pure and unbloody, and propitiatory sacrifice [Harchius, Patr. Consens. pp. 240, 263, 273, 275, 280, 299, 300.]: and so must all they who build upon the same general principles, if they mean to be consistent with themselves.

         *[The similitudes made use of for magnifying the consecrated elements (chiefly since the seventh century) are these five: 1. As the _____ deified, in a manner, the natural body; so, etc.  2. As the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Christ’s body; so, etc.  3. As the Holy Ghost formed the body in the womb; so. etc.  4. As the Holy Ghost inhabited the than Jesus; so, etc.  5. As the burning bush was a shechinah of God; so, etc.  All of them novel, and foreign; and betraying great forgetfulness of symbolical language, or sacramental phrases.]

         Or shall we, to avoid the former absurdity, endeavour only to enrich the elements with grace-giving or life-giving powers?*  That would be sacrificing the Divine attributes, as before, only with the additional absurdity of abstracting them from the essence, and placing them in a creature, an inanimate creature.

         *[[Ea igitur commixtio spiritus et panis quam patres in his sacramentis fieri dicunt, non in ipso pane fit, neque in ipso calice, sed in corde sumentis per fidem.”  Salmas. 429.  See above.  Compare Pfaffius, 414, 431, 432, 446.  “Neither the bread nor the water giveth life – but only the might and power of Christ that is in them: and yet not in them reserved, but in the action and ministration: as is manifest from his (Epiphanius’s) words.”  Cranmer, p. 327.]]

         Or shall we call it only the sacrificing of grace and pardon, first lodged in the elements, and next transferred from them to us? But how shall we make sense of it:* and if we could, how would it answer the purposes intended by it?  It is very certain, that good Christians are endowed with infused and inherent graces.  Now, supposing that the elements have the same (which however is a wild supposition), yet that could only make the elements, so far, equal to every good Christian: and still the good Christian, though equal only in that view, will be as much a nobler sacrifice than the elements, as man, the living image of God, is better than a dead loaf.  Why then so much earnestness for a dead sacrifice (were it really any) in preference to so many better living ones?  Or what sense or consistency can there be in proclaiming that such dead sacrifice, and offered by man, is the most sublime and Divine sacrifice that men or angels can offer [Unbloody Sacrifice, part ii. pp. 60, 67, 141.  Compare my Appendix to Christian Sacrifice Explained, this volume.]; especially considering, that the value of the sacrifice can never rise higher than the value of the sacrificer?**

         *[N.B.  Whatever the Fathers may be conceived to have, looking at all that way, is either to be understood of what is concurrent with the elements, not inhering in them; or else, it is to be interpreted of the whole sacramental solemnity, in which God bears his part: and then it is no more than saying, that God is in the Sacraments, as he really is, and operates in both, as he really does.  It may be justly said, that the abiding virtue of Baptism (not the inherent virtue of water, which is none) operates as long as a man lives.  See Review, above.  That is, God applies and continues the graces and privileges of that seal, and his work is sure and lasting.  And if God operated with the consecrated elements reserved in the Church, or in private houses, for many days or weeks after; it was not because the elements retained any inherent virtues, but because God is true and constant to his own covenants or ordinances.]

         *[See my Christian Sacrifice Explained, p. 441.  Peter Martyr. Comment. ad 1 Cor. pp. 48, 65.  Zanchius, tom. vi. pp. 212, 215, alias ad Ephes. p. 424.  Benedict. Aretius, Loc. Comm. p. 394. Pet. du Moulin, Buckler of Faith, p. 416.  Anatome Missae, p. 168.  Rivet. Summ. Controv. tom. ii. p. 108.  Animadv. ad Cassand. p. 28.]

         Shall we at length say (which appears to be the last refuge) that the sacred elements are the most perfect and consummate representatives of the natural body and blood, answering to the originals as completely, as exemplified copies do to charters, or to letters patents?  Such words are easily thrown out: but what sense do they bear, or what Scripture or Fathers have ever used them?*  Or to what purpose can it be, to make use of swelling and magnificent phrases, without any coherent or determinate ideas!  Besides that even the original body and blood do not operate efficiently, as the elements are supposed to do, but meritoriously, [Agnoscimus carnem vere vivificare, quatenus oblata fuit Deo ... tanquam causa meritoria, sed non vivificare corporibus nostris receptam. Rivet. tom. ii. p. 138.] and that by means of the Divinity which personally resided and resides in them: therefore, unless the elements have the same Divinity personally united with them, they can be no such consummate proxy as hath been pretended.  Upon the whole, this account must either at length resolve into a personal union of the elements with the Logos, or amount to nothing.  I have endeavoured to turn and try this matter every way, in order to guard the more strongly against a common failing, viz. the resting in a string of unmeaning words, which really carry in them no certain or no consistent ideas.  For so it is, that false systems generally have been kept up by such as intend not to deceive others, but are really deceived themselves: and it is difficult to persuade them to call over their ideas, or to examine their terms with due care.

         *[Cardinal Perron made use of that vaunting plea, that affected and foreign similitude, and was thus answered: – “Stupenda prorsus est hominis audacia, veteribus tribuentis id de quo ne per somnium quidem cogitarunt.  Quis enim illorum unquam observavit, aut tantillum subinnuit, eucharistiam hoc sensu antitypum appellari?  Nullus, nemo.”  Albertinus, p. 277: cp. pp. 437, 443, 471.  [Cp. Salmas. pp. 26, 27.]]

         2.  To what has been said I shall only add that it is worth considering that many true and sound principles of our own Church, and of the ancient churches also (as may be understood from what has been hinted) must be given up, before we could admit the bread sacrifice; and that when it is brought in, it can never find rest, till it thrusts out the sacrifice of the cross, as I have shewn elsewhere. [Appendix, chap. iv. p. 518, etc.]  Some perhaps might modestly resolve to stop in the midway; but they would be the less consistent in doing it: for the natural, necessary, unavoidable consequence of the other principle, regularly pursued, must at length terminate in rejecting the cross sacrifice.  If our Eucharist is a sacrifice of the elements, so was our Lord’s also; or else ours and his will not tally: and he must have sacrificed himself at the same time; or else other accounts will not answer. [Appendix, chap. iv. p. 528.]  And if such was the case, the sacrifice of the cross was effectually precluded, since our Lord was to make a sacrifice of himself but once. [Ibid. pp. 524, 527.]  The sacrifice of the cross cannot, in this way, be considered as a continuation of the sacrifice of the original Eucharist, for these reasons: 1. The subject matter could not be the same: for neither bread nor wine could have any place in the oblation of the cross.  2. The number could not be one; for in the original Eucharist are supposed two sacrifices, the elemental and personal, whereas upon the cross there could be no more than the personal.  3. The form of the sacrifice could not be the same, but different as bloody and unbloody.  4. The priesthood (which is most material) could not be the same: for it is denied that Christ offered at the cross a Melchizedekian sacrifice,* or offered as a Melchizedekian priest. [See Appendix, above.]  5. Lastly, the value could not be the same: for two must be supposed better than one, if each of them has its respective value; or if not, why was not one of them spared?  And a Melchizedekian sacrifice must be supposed the most honourable and the most valuable of any, and so of course must supersede all other.  In short, the cross sacrifice in this way must either be excluded, or else grievously disparaged, by being brought in as second, and inferior to the higher sacrifice before made in the Eucharist.  Some learned persons, ancient and modern, have reasonably conceived three several parts or views of one continued oblation of Christ our Lord [See Review above.]: but then they have conceived it in quite another sense, and upon very different principles, nothing at all akin to the notion of the bread sacrifice.  They might, in their way, consistently maintain one continued oblation; which others cannot, for the reasons just mentioned.  Therefore, though it is a very great error to reject the sacrifice of the cross, yet since it is but the necessary consequence of the principle before mentioned, and is no more than arguing right from wrong premises; it seems that the first or greatest fault lies in retaining the principle, after it is clearly seen what company it must go with, and what precipices it leads to.  I forbear to press these matters further, and should have been glad to have had no occasion for pressing them so far.  May God give a blessing to what is sincerely intended for the service of truth and godliness: and may that Divine Spirit which accompanies the word and sacraments, and dwells in all the faithful, grant us a sound judgment and a right understanding in all things.

         *[[“Si fuit in coena sacerdos, ut volunt, juxta ordinem Melchisedech, in cruentum offerendo sacrificium, qualis in cruce sacerdos fuit, ubi sanguis est effusus?  Nil deest ad illorum stultitiam ecclesiae propinandam, nisi ut dicant (quemadmodum insipidissimus rabula Smythaeus aliquando scripsit, et postea publice Londini A.D. 1549, ad crucem D. Pauli recantavit) Christum in cruce tantum fuisse sacerdotem secundum ordinem Aaronis.”  Peter Mart. contr. Gardin. p. 60.  Cp. Fulke in Heb. 7. pp. 748, 749.  Heskyns (1566), b. i. c. 13. p. 28. c. 28; p. 70.  Vasquez. 533.  Alanus, 534.  Appendix, above.]

 

 

Distinctions Of Sacrifice Set Forth In A Charge Delivered In Part

To The Clergy Of Middlesex, At the Easter Visitation, 1740.

Nos panem et vinum, in usu sacrae Coenae, sanctificari concedimus: sacrificari nunquam dabimus.  Mason. de Minister. Anglican. p. 575.

 

Reverend Brethren,

         Though I have dwelt some time upon the Christian sacrifice, perhaps even to a degree of tediousness; yet considering the great importance of the subject, I am not willing to dismiss it, while I see room left for throwing in any further light upon it.  This may be done, as I conceive, by a more minute consideration of the several distinctions, or names of distinction, which sacrifice, of one kind or other, has passed under, in Church writers; those especially of the earlier times, not neglecting others of later date.

         My design therefore, at present, is to bring together into one summary view the most noted distinctions, or names of distinction; and to explain them one by one, taking in the authorities proper to illustrate their meaning, or to signify their use.

I.  The first and most comprehensive division, or distinction of sacrifice, is into four several kinds, denominated from so many several kinds of religion; Patriarchal, Pagan, Mosaic, and Christian.

         1.  The Patriarchal sacrifices commenced, very probably, soon after the fall, and consisted of slain beasts,[ This hath been probably collected from Gen. 3:21.  See Patrick and other commentators.] prefiguring Christ to be slain, pursuant to some Divine appointment. [See my first Charge of 1731, Works, vol. v. p. 20.  Cp. Eusebius, Demonstr. Evang. lib. i. cap. 10. p. 35.]  Certain it is, that Cain and Abel offered sacrifices, and that very early [A.M. 130.  Bedford’s Scripture Chronol. p.126.]; one, of the fruits of the earth; and the other of cattle. [Gen. 4:3–4.]  Such were the patriarchal sacrifices strictly so called, of the material and extrinsic kind.  No doubt but the good Patriarchs offered spiritual sacrifices besides: but those were Gospel sacrifices (as the Gospel, in some sense, obtained even from the time of the fall [See my Review, above.]), and therefore I reckon not them as purely patriarchal.

         2.  The second branch of this division concerns the Pagan. sacrifices; which appear to have been little else but the patriarchal, variously corrupted, at different times, and in different degrees, by superstitious additions or mutilations. [Tantum interest inter sacrificia Paganorum et Hebraeorum, quantum, interest inter imitationem errantem, et praefigurationem praenuntiantem. Augustin. contr. Faust. lib. xxi. cap. 21. p. 348.  Cp. lib. xxii. cap. 17. p. 370. ed. Bened.]

         3.  The Mosaic sacrifices were the patriarchal augmented, regulated, and very minutely diversified, by Divine authority.

         4.  The Christian sacrifices are what both the patriarchal and Mosaic, strictly so called, pointed to: they are the things signified, the truth, the substance, the antitypes or archetypes of those types, signs, figures, shadows.  Christians have a sacrifice of which they participate, and whereupon they feast, which is no other than the grand sacrifice itself, whereof the patriarchal and Jewish sacrifices were types, or prefigurations: and Christians have sacrifices, which they devoutly offer up as presents* to the Divine Majesty: those are their spiritual sacrifices (all reducible to one, namely, self-sacrifice), whereof the patriarchal sacrifices were signs or symbols.**  So much, in the general, of the first distinction, or fourfold division: some particulars just hinted shall be explained in the sequel, in the places proper.  I proceed to a second distinction.

         *[Note, That the two oldest names of sacrifice are “mincha” (Gen. 4:3) and “corban” (Levit. 1:2), both signifying a gift, or present; and in that case, a gift to God.  This observation may be of use to cut off all fruitless speculations upon the critical meaning of the younger name _____, in the Greek, and to vindicate the propriety of the appellation, as to spiritual services, the noblest of all presents to a spiritual Being.]

         **[Of the difference between a type and a symbol, see Outram de Sacrificiis, p. 203.  A type, strictly, is an image or figure of things future: but a symbol is an image or figure of things at large, whether past, present, or to come.  So that “symbol” is a more general name than “type”; though they are sometimes used promiscuously in ancient writers.]

II.  Sacrifices may be considered either in an active view as offered, or in a passive view as participated.  The Jewish Passover, or paschal lamb, for instance, might be considered as a sacrifice offered up to God by the priests, or as a sacrifice participated by the people who feasted upon it.  The case is the same, so far, with our Lord’s sacrifice: for he is our Passover, sacrificed for us. [1 Cor. 5:7.]  He is the Lamb of God, as he offered himself up a sacrifice to God: he is our Paschal Lamb, as we participate of him, and feed upon him.*  This distinction of active and passive sacrifice is not met with among the ancients, in terms: but it is sufficiently warranted by the ideas of the New Testament, and by the doctrine of the primitive Churches; and it is founded in the very reason and nature of things.  To explain this matter, let it be observed, that our Lord’s sacrifice, actively considered, as a proper act of sacrificing, was performed once for all, was one transient act: but the subject matter of it, viz. Christ himself, and the virtue of that sacrifice, are permanent things, to be for ever commemorated, exhibited, participated. Christ entered into heaven with “his own blood;” [Heb. 9:12.] and in virtue of the cross sacrifice, he “abideth a priest continually, ever living to make intercession for us.” [Heb. 7:3, 25.]  In such a sense his sacrifice abides, and we perpetually participate of it; sometimes symbolically, as in the two Sacraments; and at other times without symbols, by faith only and good life.  In this sense it is that Christians are said to “have an altar whereof to eat” [Heb. 13:10.  See my Review, above.]: and if an altar, they must have a sacrifice, for the same reason, and in the like sense.  The same thing is intimated by St. Paul, in the comparison which he draws between the partakers of the Jewish altar and the Christian communicants [1 Cor. 10:16–21.]: for as the Jews literally feasted upon the typical sacrifices, so Christians spiritually feast upon the body and blood of Christ, the true and grand sacrifice. Therefore Christ’s sacrifice is our sacrifice, but in the passive sense, for us to partake of, not to give unto God. Christ once gave himself to God for us, and now gives himself to us, to feast upon, not to sacrifice. This distinction is worth the noting, for the explaining numerous passages of the Fathers; either, where they speak of Christ himself as the Church’s sacrifice, [See Christian Sacrifice Explained, pp. 460, 461.] or where they consider the grand sacrifice as dispensed or communicated** in the Eucharist, by and through the symbols, to as many as are worthy.

         *[Ferus, a learned and moderate Romanist, who died A.D. 1554, expressed this matter very justly, and after the Protestant way.  “In Ecclesia autem, sacrificium nostrum est Christus: qui semel quidem seipsum obtulit, memoria tamen et repraesentatio ejus sacrificii quotidie in Ecclesia fit.  Juxta hoc, offerre debemus sacrificium laudis, item sacrificium justitiae, imo nos ipsos. Joan. Fer. in Genes. cap. viii. p. 248. A.D. 1550.]

         **[Memoriam sui ad altare tuum, Deus, fieri desideravit [Monica] cui nullius diei intermissione servierat, unde sciret dispensari victimam sacram, qua deletum est chirographum quod erat contrarium nobis. Augustin. Confess. lib. ix. cap. 13. p. 170. tom. i. edit. Bened.  “Ut jam de cruce commendaretur nobis caro et sanguis Domini, novum sacrificium. Augustin. in Ps. 33. p. 211. tom. iv.  “Quod addidit, manducare panem, etiam ipsum sacrificii genus eleganter expressit, de quo dicit sacerdos ipse, panis quem ego dedero, caro mea pro saeculi vita.  Ipsum est sacrificium, non secundum Aaron, sed secundum Melchizedech.”  Augustin. de Civit. Dei, lib. xviii. cap. 5. p. 466. tom. vii.]

         But while Scripture and Fathers thus speak of Christ himself, or of his body and blood, as the sacrifice whereof Christians partake, that is, of sacrifice in the passive sense, or passive view, with respect to us the receivers of it; yet the same Scripture and Fathers do as plainly and as frequently speak of other sacrifices belonging to Christians, such as they actively offer up to God, and present as their own sacrifices, the best they have to give; and those are their spiritual sacrifices, of which I shall say more under a distinct head, in its place.  Enough, I hope, hath been said for the explaining both the meaning and the use of the distinction between active and passive sacrifice, between performing a sacrifice, and participating of what has been sacrificed.  Our religious duties or services are our only sacrifices in the active view; and Christ once offered is our only sacrifice in the passive or receptive view; as was formerly well distinguished by a moderate Roman Catholic,* who met with hard usage for so freely speaking the truth.  But I pass on.

         *[Rite in missa dicitur a sanctis Patribus offerri et sacrificari corpus Christi.  1. Eo sensu quo asserunt Ecclesiam offerre in missa semetipsam et preces.  2. Quia in missa repraesentatur et commemoratur sacrificium crucis et passionis Christi, nuncupatur sacrificium commemorativum.  3. Capiendo sacrificium passive, pro sacrificato, noviter applicato nobis, asseritur rite sacrificium missae; quia in ea continetur corpus Christi quod fuit vere sacrificatum in unico illo sacrificio crucis. Joan. Barnes. Catholico Roman. Pacific. in Brown. Fascic. tom. ii. p. 849.]

III.  Another very noted and necessary distinction is between sacrifice extrinsic and intrinsic.  Christians have no extrinsic sacrifice but Christ; and that with regard to participation only, as before hinted: all their other sacrifices, wherein they themselves are the sacrificers, are of the intrinsic kind, are “ab intus,” from within the persons themselves; being either good thoughts, good words, or good ways, all of them issues of the heart. [Prov. 4:23.]  This is ancient and catholic doctrine: for thus did the primitive Fathers distinguish the Christian sacrifices from the sacrifices of Jews and Pagans; which were of the extrinsic kind, were extraneous to the man, such as sheep, goats, beeves, fruits, cakes, or the like.  What Barnabas says of God’s now requiring an human oblation, instead of the old legal sacrifices,* may best be interpreted by this key: it is the man that God requires as his sacrifice; and he is to give to God, not things extrinsic, but his whole self; his soul and body, his mind and heart.**

         *[Haec ergo [sacrificia] vacua fecit, ut nova lex Domini nostri Jesu Christi, quae sine jugo necessitatis est, humanam habeat oblationem. ... Nobis enim dicit, sacrificium Deo cor tribulatum, etc.  Barnab. Epist. c. ii. p. 55.  Compare my Review, above, p. 347.]

         **[Deus non pecudis sanguine, sed hominis pietate placatur. Lactant. Epist. p. 204.  “Non vult ergo sacrificium trucidati pecoris, sed vult sacrificium contriti cordis. Augustin. de Civit. Dei, lib. x. cap. 5. p. 241. tom. vii.]

         Origen expresses the distinction in plain and broad terms, observing that every good man has his sacrifice in himself [Unusquisque nostrum habet in se holocaustum suum, et holocausti sui ipse succendit altare, ut semper ardeat. Origen. in Levit. Hom. ix. p. 243.]: that he sends it up to God from within, from his own self: that sons, or daughters, or farms, or cattle, are all of them extraneous, or extrinsic, to the man: that self-sacrifice is beyond all other, as it is copying after the example of Christ.*  Origen was not singular in thus commending self-sacrifice, as the best of any, and the sum total of all: other ancient Fathers of the Church have done the like. [See references to them in Christian Sacrifice Explained, Append. above.]  It is a maxim of truth, and of common sense, that self-sacrifice is always the best that any person or persons can offer, because it comprehends them and all theirs.  An angel’s self-sacrifice is the most that such angel can offer, and our Lord’s self-sacrifice was the most that he could offer, and every man’s self-sacrifice is the most that such man can offer.  There is a seeming objection to this truth, drawn from the consideration of an authorized minister’s offering up to God his own people; who, collectively at least, must be owned to be better than he.  But then it is to be remembered, that such authorized minister therein acts “in persona ecclesiae,” in a public capacity, as an officer of the church;** and so it is the whole church which offers what is offered in and through him.  But I return.

         *[Vota autem Domino offerre nemo potest, nisi qui habet aliquid in semetipso, et in substantia sua, quod offerat Deo. ... Filium offerre, vel filiam, aut pecus, aut praedium, hoc totum extra nos est.  Semetipsum Deo offerre, et non alieno labore, sed proprio placere, hoc est perfectius et eminentius omnibus votis: quod qui facit, imitator est Christi. Origen. in Num. Hom. xxiv. p. 364. ed. Bened.]

         **[See Christian Sacrifice Explained, Append. above.  Object. 1. May not the value of an offering, by Divine institution, be made to rise higher than the value of the man?  No: for if it is made the man’s property (and otherwise he cannot give or sacrifice it), the proprietor is still more valuable than the property, as containing it.  Object. 2. Is not the offering Christ to view, more valuable than offering ourselves?  No: because it is service only, and no service is more valuable than the servant himself: besides, such offering to view is not sacrificing Christ: so the objection runs wide of the point.]

         To Origen I may subjoin Lactantius, who rejects all extrinsic sacrifice, everything extraneous to the man; alleging that God requires only what comes from within; from the heart, not from the chest; offered up by the mind, not by the hand.*  This is not excluding good services, whether external or internal, whether mental, vocal, or manual: for they are intrinsic to the person, are as the man himself, amounting to, or resolving into self-sacrifice.  What our Lord says of evil thoughts, words, and deeds, that they come from within, and out of the heart, [Matt. 15:18–19.  Mark 7:15, 23.] must be equally true of all good services; for the reason is the same in both.  This I hint, lest any one should interpret intrinsic sacrifice of mental service only, exclusive of vocal or manual, confounding intrinsic sacrifice with internal, which is of different consideration, and belongs to another head of division, as will be seen in the sequel.  But I proceed to other authorities.

         *[Quid igitur ab homine desiderat Deus, nisi cultum mentis, qui est purus et sanctus?  Nam illa quae aut digitis fiunt, aut extra hominem sunt, inepta, fragilia, ingrata sunt.  Hoc est sacrificium verum, non quod ex area, sed quod ex corde profertur; non quod manu, sed quod mente libatur.  Haec acceptabilis victima, quam de seipso animus immolaverit. Lactant. Epist. cap. p. 172.  Cp. Zen. Veron. in Psal. 49.]

         Chrysostom understood the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic sacrifice, rejecting the one as Jewish, and recommending the other as proper to the Gospel: those he says were from without, these from within. [_______ ___ ___ Ļ______ ___ ___ _______ _____, _____ __ ______.  _______ ______, _____ _______.  Chrysost. in Heb. cap. vi. Hom. 11. p. 115. tom. xii. Bened. ed.]  His disciple Isidore fell in with the like sentiments, in his reflections on Rom. 12:1, “Present your bodies a living sacrifice,” [Isidor. Pelusiot. lib. iii. Epist. 75. p. 284.] etc.  St. Austin is very clear and expressive on the same head: for after rejecting all extrinsic sacrifice (actively considered), he then asks the question, “What? have we therefore nothing to offer?  Shall we so come before God?  So hope to appease him?”  He answers: “By all means offer: you have within you what you are to offer.  Look not abroad for frankincense, but say, In me are thy sacrifices of praise, O God, which I am to render thee.  Seek not abroad for cattle to slay; you have within yourself what you should slay.  The sacrifice of God is a troubled spirit.”*  I may hereupon remark that St. Austin would not say in this case, Offer Christ: for though Christ is our sacrifice to commemorate, or to feast upon, he is not our sacrifice to offer up in a proper sacrificial sense.  Much less would he say, Sacrifice bread and wine; for they are things extrinsic, as much as cattle or frankincense, and cannot be the subject matter of a Gospel sacrifice, any more than the other.  What then was the only sacrifice left for a Christian actively and properly to offer?  The man himself (or his services, which amount to the same thing) that was still left: and there St. Austin very justly and very consistently fixed the Christian sacrifice (actively considered), as he always does.

         *[Nihil ergo offeremus?  Sic veniemus ad Deum?  Et unde ilium placabimus?  Offer sane: in te habes quod offeras.  Noli extrinsecus thura comparare, sed die, In me sunt, Deus, vota tua, quae reddam laudis tibi.  Noli extrinsecus pecus quod mactes inquirere: habes in te quod occidas.  Sacrificium Deo spiritus contribulatus,etc.  Augustin. in Psalm 50. p. 473. tom. iv.  Cp., pp. 14, 364, 527–529.]

IV.  I pass on to another ancient and useful distinction of sacrifice, into visible and invisible.  A distinction near akin to the former, or rather resolving into it.  Pagan and Jewish sacrifices were visible; but the Christian sacrifices were deemed invisible; not every way, but in respect of their invisible source, as arising from within, from the heart or mind, which is seen to God only.  Lactantius argues, that our sacrifices ought to be invisible, that so they may suit the better with an invisible Deity. [Si enim Deus non videtur, ergo his rebus coli debet quae non videntur. Lactant. de Ver. Cult. lib. vi. cap. 25.]  St. Austin has the same distinction between visible and invisible sacrifices, meaning by the visible the noted sacrifices of Jews and Pagans, and by the invisible, the sacrifices made by good Christians only, the Gospel sacrifices.  In one place he observes, that the Jewish sacrifices, which God’s people now read of only, and do not use, were signs of the evangelical; and thereupon he says, that “a visible sacrifice is a Sacrament, or holy sign, of an invisible sacrifice.”*  In another place, arguing, “ex hypothesi,” against Porphyrius and other Pagans (whose principle it was, to offer what they called invisible sacrifices to God supreme, and what they called visible, to inferior deities), he pleads, that both the visible and invisible ought to go to the supreme only; those being signs of these, and requiring the same direction, to the same Deity: and hereupon he observes, that the persons themselves are, or ought to be, that invisible sacrifice, whereof the visible are the signs.**  St. Austin here builds upon this Christian maxim, that what some call visible sacrifice, is really no better than the sign, shell, shadow, of true sacrifice; and that it is no more true sacrifice, than articulate sounds are sense, or words are ideas.  Nothing with him is true sacrifice, or acceptable sacrifice, or evangelical sacrifice (for those are so many phrases reciprocal and tantamount), but the invisible sacrifice, the sacrifice of the heart, of the mind, of the man, for the mind is the man.

         *[Nec quod ab antiquis Patribus talia sacrificia facta sunt in victimis pecorum (quae nunc Dei populus legit, non facit) aliud intelligendum est, nisi rebus illis eas res fuisse significatas quae aguntur in nobis, ad hoc ut inhaereamus Deo, et ad eundem finem proximo consulamus.  Sacrificium ergo visibile invisibilis sacrificii Sacramentum, id est, sacrum signum est. Augustin. de Civit. Dei, lib. x. cap. 5. p. 241. tom. vii.]

         **[“Qui autem putant haec visibilia sacrificia Diis aliis congruere, illi vero tanquam invisibili invisibilia, et majori majora, meliorique meliora, qualia sunt purae mentis, et bonae voluntatis officia; profecto nesciunt haec ita esse signa, eorum, sicut verba sonantia, signa sunt rerum.  Quocirca, sicut orantes atque laudantes, ad eum dirigimus significantes voces, cui res ipsas in corde, quas significamus, offerimus, ita sacrificantes non alteri visibile sacrificium offerendum esse noverimus, quam illi cujus in cordibus nostris invisibile sacrificium nos ipsi esse debemus. Augustin. ibid. lib. x. cap. 19. p. 255.]

         One may justly wonder what some Divines, among the Romanists, have meant, who, in order to maintain an extrinsic sacrifice in the Eucharist, have laid hold of Austin’s account of a visible sacrifice (that is, of a sign, shell, shadow), as amounting to a definition of true or proper sacrifice. [Sacrificium, proprie dictum, est sacrum signum.”  Sylvius, tom. iv. p. 624.  “Sacrificium est invisibilis sacrificii visibile Sacramentum. Bayus, lib. iii. cap. 2. p. 210.]  They could not have contrived a shorter or surer way to depreciate the eucharistic sacrifice.  For since it is manifest, that St. Austin rejected those called visible sacrifices, as what never were true sacrifices (in his sense of true), even when required under the law, and are not required at all, under the notion of sacrifice, by the Gospel,* the advancing of signs now into proper sacrifices is but a kind of will worship, or sacrilegious usurpation.  The sacramental elements are not that true sacrifice which St. Austin so often speaks of, but the signs of it [Quod ab omnibus appellatur sacrificium, signum est yeti sacrificii. Augustin. de Civit. Del, lib. x. cap. 5. p. 242.]; not that true eucharistic sacrifice which that Father so magnificently sets forth, but the shadows of it.**  And what can give a man a meaner idea of the eucharistic oblation and sacerdotal sacrifice, than the placing it in the signs of true sacrifice, and thereby setting it much lower than the private but true sacrifice of every single laic of the Church?  In short, St. Austin’s true sacrifice was really self-sacrifice, [Augustin. tom. v. p. 268; tom. vii. pp. 242–244, 256, 260, 569, 609, 674; tom. viii. pp. 349, 568; tom. x. p. 94. ed. Bened.] the same with his invisible sacrifice: and his eucharistic sacrifice was the offering up the collective body of Christians, the whole Church or city of God. [Vid. tom. vii. pp. 243, 244, 256, 260, 569, 674.]  But of this I may say more in a proper place.  All that I shall observe further here is, that St. Austin never once gives (so far as appears) the name of visible sacrifice to anything which he esteemed true sacrifice, or Gospel sacrifice, justly so called.  What he said of visible sacrifice, in the two passages before cited, related purely to the Jewish and Pagan sacrifices, which he opposed to the invisible, that is, to the Christian sacrifices.  He does indeed sometimes speak of the Christian sacrifices, as appearing,*** or being seen; that is, in such a sense as things invisible may be said to be seen by their signs, or reasonably collected and inferred from what appears outwardly.  Good works are seen by men, and they are sacrifices: but they are not seen as good, or as sacrifices, except to God only, who alone sees the heart.  Good Christians are a sacrifice to God in St. Austin’s account, and they are visible, as men: nevertheless, he calls them an invisible sacrifice, because in their sacrificial capacity they are seen to God only, the searcher of hearts.  He would not allow that Satan himself could see what Job did, when he sacrificed unto God: Job was visible, but his sacrifice was invisible; because it was true sacrifice, arising from the heart.****  From what hath been noted under this article, it may sufficiently appear that the Gospel sacrifices are of the invisible kind, as contradistinguished from the visible sacrifices of Jews and Pagans; and that they have had the name of invisible, on the same account as they had the name of intrinsic; and so both the names resolve into one and the same notion.  By these accounts, the bread and wine of the Eucharist could not be considered as Gospel sacrifices, being that they are “ab extra,” and open to view; and as they are not intrinsic, so neither are they invisible, either in themselves or in their source.

         *[In hujus prophetae verbis utrumque distinctum est, satisque declaratum, illa sacrificia per seipsa non requirere Deum, quibus significantur haec sacrificia quae requirit Deus.”  Augustin. de Civit. Dei, lib. x. cap. 5. p. 242.]

         **[Nazianzen expressly teaches the same thing, where he declares that the outward oblation is but as shadow to truth, in respect of the true and spiritual sacrifices.  ____ ___ ____ ____________, __ __Ļ__ __ ___ _______ ... _____ Ļ___________, _____ ____ _____, ______, ___ Ļ________, ___ ____________, _________ ___ ___ Ļ___________, ___ ________ _____ _ _______.  Nazianz. Orat. xxviii. p. 484.  See my Review, above.  “Gregorius affirrnat oblationern illam quae fit in Eucharistia, esse umbram ac imaginem oblationum nostrarum spiritualium, ac iis longe inferiorem.”  Albertinus, p. 474.  The reader may compare Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. p. 32, if disposed to observe what may be said, where no just answer can be given.  Albertinus had foreclosed all evasions: and yet no notice was taken of him.]

         ***[Ibi quippe primum apparuit sacrificium quod nunc a Christianis offertur Deo, toto orbe terrarum, etc.  Augustin. de Civit. Dei, lib. xvi. cap. 22. p. 435. tom. vii.  “Cum videt sacrificium Christianorum toto orbe terrarum, etc.  Ibid. lib. xvii. cap. 5. p. 465.]

         ****[Ablatis omnibus, solus remansit Job: sed in illo erant vota laudis quae redderet Deo.  In illo plane erant: arcam pectoris sui fur diabolus non invaserat.  Plenus erat unde sacrificaret.  Deus videbat in corde servi sui cultum suum gratuitum: placebat illud cor in conspectu Domini, in luce viventium.  Diabolum latebat, quia in tenebris erat. August. in Psalm 56. pp. 528, 529, tom. iv.]

V.  Another, more ancient and more famed distinction of sacrifice, was into material and immaterial, or corporeal and incorporeal: the Christian sacrifices were of the immaterial and incorporeal kind, and as such distinguished from the Jewish and Pagan sacrifices, which were material and corporeal.  This distinction is as old as Justin Martyr, who rejected the sacrifices of Jews or Pagans, as material sacrifices.  Such material things, he says, God has no need to receive of us, but that he accepts only of the men themselves, while copying after the Divine perfections, purity, righteousness, philanthropy, and the like.*  This was pleaded in answer to the Pagan charge of impiety, thrown upon Christians for not using material sacrifices.  Justin tacitly admits the charge as to fact that the Christians did not use such sacrifices; but in vindication of their conduct in that article, he pleads that God had no need of material sacrifices: which in his phraseology, as circumstances shew, amounted to saying, that God did not require them, but indeed rejected them.  This appears very plainly by his use of the like phrase soon after, with respect to blood, libations, and incense, which, without all question, Justin understood to have been absolutely rejected: yet Justin, even in that case also, pleaded that God had no need of them. [_______ _______, ___ _Ļ_____, ___ __________.  Just. Mart. Apol. p. 19.  See Review, above, and Dodwell, of Incense, p. 46.]  He chose, very probably, that form of speaking, by way of oblique reproof to the Pagans, for their gross sentiments, in conceiving that the Deity had need of such offerings.  Other Fathers, in the same cause, made use of the phrase of “no need,” exactly in the same way; so as not barely to teach that God is all-sufficient, but intimating withal, that God had really rejected what he is there said to have no need of [Athenagoras, pp. 48, 49.  Clem. Alex. pp. 836, 848.  Tertullian ad Scap. c. ii. p. 69.  Arnobius, lib. vi. pp. 190, 191.  Lactantius, Epit. c. lviii. pp. 171, 172.]: otherwise their arguments on that head would have been of no force to justify the conduct of Christians in their not admitting such or such sacrifices.  It is observable that in both the places where Justin speaks of the sacrifices which God has no need of, he uses the phrase in direct opposition to such sacrifices as God accepts of; which makes it still plainer that that phrase, as it there stands, is used as equivalent to disallowing, or rejecting.  But to clear the matter up yet further, so as to cut off all evasive pretenses or reserves (as if Justin had left room for a material sacrifice in some shape or other), it is worth noting that he distinctly points out what is to be offered to man, and what to God, in the Eucharist: all the material part, all that God gives for nutriment, is to be offered to ourselves and to the needy, and to God are to be sent up hymns and praises.**  Justin could never have expressed himself in that manner, had he thought that any part of that material nutriment was to be a sacrifice unto God.  The words are very emphatic.  We are not to burn it, as the Pagans did: well, what then are we to do with it?  May we not Ļ_________, offer it up as a sacrifice?  No; but we must offer it, in a lower sense, to man.  What then is to be offered up to God?  Nothing?  Yes, thanks,. praises, hymns, and the like: that is God’s tribute, that is a sacrifice fit for him, and worthy of him.  I have dwelt the longer upon this Father, because of his great antiquity and authority, and because his sentiments on this head have been sometimes widely mistaken by contending parties.

         *[___’ __ _______ ___ Ļ___ _____Ļ__ ______ Ļ________ Ļ____________ ___ ____, _____ Ļ________ Ļ____ ________  ________ __ Ļ___________ _____ _____ ___________ ___ Ļ_Ļ_______, ___ Ļ_________ ____ __ Ļ________ ____ _____ ___________, __________, ___ ___________, ___ ________Ļ___, ___ ___ ______ ___ ____.  Just. Mart. Apol. i. p. 14.  Compare my Review, above.]

         **[__ __ _Ļ’ _______ ___ _________ ________, __ Ļ___ __Ļ____, ___’ _______ ___ ____ _________ Ļ_________, ______ __ ___________ _____ ___ _____ Ļ__Ļ__ ___ ______ Ļ__Ļ___.  Just. Mart. Apol. i. p. 19.  Literally thus: “Not to consume by fire the creatures made for nutriment, but to offer them to ourselves, and to the needy; and thankfully to send up to him [God] by speech, praises and hymns.”  N.B.  Mr. Reeves has diluted the meaning of this passage by a translation too paraphrastic.  It cannot be supposed that Justin meant only that such things should not be offered to God by wasting, burning; for he declares plainly what things are to be presented to God, and what to man: besides that the taking from such offerings the very essential characteristics of all material presents to God is the same with forbidding them to be used as presents, or considered as presents to the Divine Majesty.]

         I pass on to Lactantius,* who has the same distinction with Justin, but under the names of corporeal and incorporeal, instead of material and immaterial: he argues, that since God is incorporeal, he ought to have a sacrifice suitable, that is, incorporeal.  Nay, he argues further that no other kind of sacrifice ought to be offered him, and that he requires no other. [Quid igitur ab bomine desiderat Deus, nisi cultum mentis, qui est purus et sanctus? See above.]  It is observable, that his incorporeal sacrifices take in mental, vocal, and manual services; all good works, [Hic cultor est veri Dei, cujus sacrificia sunt mansuetudo animi, et vita innocens et actus boni. Lactant. Instit. lib. vi. c. 24.] external or internal, coming from a good mind.  Bodily service is performed indeed by the body, as the instrument: but that service is not a bodily substance, not a material thing; as a sheep, a bullock, a cake, a loaf, or a vessel of wine is.  Lactantius’s notion of sacrifice includes all acts of obedience, all true services of the man [Haec sunt opera, haec officia misericordiae; quae si quis obierit, verum et acceptum sacrificium Deo immolabit. Lactant. Epit. p. 204.  Cp. Minue. Fel. sect. 32. p. 183. in Review, above.]; but it excludes everything extraneous to the man, from being the subject matter of his sacrifice: so that this distinction of corporeal and incorporeal, or of material and immaterial, differs only (if it at all differs) in a mode of conception from the distinction of extrinsic and intrinsic, before explained.

         *[Sicut corporalibus corporalia, sic utique incorporali incorporale sacrificium necessarium est. Lactant. Epit. c. lxviii. p. 171.  Duo sunt quae offerri debeant, donum et sacrificium. ... Deo utrumque incorporale offerendum est, quo utitur.  Donum est integritas animi, sacrificium, laus et hymnus. Lactant. Instit. lib. vi. c. 24.  Compare my Review, above.]

         Eusebius recommends the Christian sacrifices as incorporeal, in opposition to the corporeal sacrifices of Jews and Pagans.*  Basil in like manner observes, that God rejects corporeal sacrifices.**  Chrysostom also bears his testimony to the same thing, and in words of like import, where he speaks of the converted Jews as relinquishing their corporeal services, upon their embracing Christianity.***  Cyril, after observing that beeves, sheep, turtles, pigeons, fruits, fine flour, cakes, incenses, are all discarded under the Gospel, as too gross to be offered for sacrifice: and that Christians are commanded to offer up something more fine and more abstracted, more intellectual and spiritual, namely, meekness, faith, hope, charity, righteousness, temperance, obedience, dutifulness, praises, and all kinds of virtues (not a word of bread or of wine in all this long list), adds, “For this sacrifice, as being purest from matter, is most worthy of the Deity, who is by nature uncompounded and immaterial.”****  To the same purpose writes Procopius, of the next succeeding century; observing that corporeal sacrifice is abolished, and spiritual established. [______ _______ __ __ _________ _______, __ Ļ__________ Ļ______ _Ļ__________.  Procop. Gaz. in Isa. pp. 22, 23: cp. p. 493.]

         *[ ______ __ Ļ____ ___ _________ ___ ______ ______ __ Ļ________ ________ _____.  Euseb. Demonstr. lib. i. c. 10. p. 39: cp. 35, 36.  Origen. in Psalm. pp. 563, 722. edit. Bened., and my Review, above, p. 376.]

         **[___________ ___ _________ ______.  Basil. Comm. in Isa. tom. i. p. 398. edit. Bened.  N.B.  In Review, above, I took notice, that the editor had rejected that piece as of doubtful authority, in his preface, tom. i. p. 48.  But I have since observed that in a later tome he altered his mind, and admitted it as genuine, giving his reasons, tom. iii. in Vita Basilii, c. 42. p. 179, etc.]

         ***[___ ___ ______ ___ _____________ ___ ___ _____ _________ _______ ____Ļ____.  Chrysost. adv. Judaeos, Hom. vii. p. 664. tom. i. ed. Bened.  Cp. ad Roman. Hom. xx. p. 658. tom. x.]

         ****[________ ___ ____ _____ __ ____ _____ _Ļ__ ___ ____ Ļ__Ļ____ ___.  Cyrill. Alex. contr. Julian. lib. x. p. 345.  Compare Review, above.  Dodwell on Incense, p. 89.]

         Could such writers, after all, believe bread or wine to be the sacrifice which God accepts?  Are they finer than fine flour?  Are they purer than cakes?  Or say that they are: yet are they immaterial, or incorporeal?  Or if even that were allowed (which never can be allowed), yet are they faith, or hope, or charity, or good mind, or good life?  Every way they stand excluded.  But still, colours have been invented, to evade the authorities here cited: sometimes it is said, that immaterial, or incorporeal, may not mean perfectly immaterial, but only less gross, or less feculent.*  That is not very likely, if we consider that the immateriality or incorporeity of the sacrifice spoken of is understood to be analogous to God’s immateriality or incorporeity, to which it is compared.  But that is not all: for it is further to be considered, that the immaterial quality of the Christian sacrifices was commended by the Fathers, in opposition to the Jewish and Pagan sacrifices.  Now had they really meant no more than that they were less gross, or less dreggy, such an argument could not have failed to introduce a very doubtful debate between them and their adversaries, viz. whether the Jewish and Pagan fine flour and cakes were not as free from dregs as the Christians’ bread; and whether their libations were not of wine as pure, and as free from feculence, as any that the Christians could pretend to.  Yet we find nothing recorded, no not so much as a hint of any such debate: wherefore it is much more reasonable, as well as more natural to suppose, that those plain Fathers, who were both wise and honest men, understood immaterial and incorporeal in the usual and obvious sense of those words.  And indeed the instances which they give to exemplify what they meant, such as hope, faith, virtue, all immaterial (and those were their sacrifices) demonstrate that they did so.  I take no notice of some slighter evasions which have been offered, for fear of being tedious, or of giving offence to persons of true discernment.

         *[“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 ______.  For I apprehend that some of the ancients may have asserted, that the eucharistic sacrifice is _____, as well as ________; but then they did not mean perfectly immaterial, or without bodily substance, but not gross or dreggy.”  Unbloody Sacrifice, part p. 27.]

VI.  I pass on to the famous distinction of bloody and unbloody sacrifice: a distinction, probably, borrowed from the Pythagorean philosophers [Vid. Clem. Alex. pp. 848, 849. ed. Ox.] by the Christian Fathers of a philosophic turn, who, by some easy and proper refinements of the idea, adapted it to Christian purposes.  Justin Martyr here seems to have led the way; who to the Pagan sacrifices of blood, and to their libations, opposes the true spiritual praises and thanksgivings offered up by Christians.*  He did not say unbloody, or spiritual bread and wine, but spiritual praises and thanksgivings.  Athenagoras, of the same age, says, that it is meet to offer an unbloody sacrifice, and to bring a rational service. [__________ ____ __________ ______, ___ ___ _______ Ļ________ ________.  Athenag. Legat. p. 49.]  Had he intended bread and wine by the unbloody sacrifice, this would have been the place wherein to have mentioned them: but he has not one word of them.  All that he opposes to the sacrifices of blood, are the knowledge of God’s works and ways, the lifting up holy hands, and the like; which, according to him, are _____ _______, the noblest sacrifice; and therefore, undoubtedly, the same that he recommends under the names of unbloody sacrifice and rational service. [See my Review, above, and compare Jewel’s Answer to Harding, pp. 427, 428.]  He had said before, God needs no blood, nor fat, nor scents, nor incense; that is, he does not now accept them.  What then does he accept instead of blood, etc.?  Did he say bread or wine?  No: but he tells us of that greatest sacrifice, describing it as consisting of religious faith, and prayers, and services: those God accepts in opposition to blood, etc., wherefore those are what this Father recommended as unbloody sacrifice in the place now cited.  The case is plain in the author himself, and will, besides, be abundantly confirmed by other similar passages in the Fathers that followed, whose testimonies I shall take in their order of time.

         *[__ __ __ Ļ____ Ļ_______, __ ______ ______ ______, _ ____ ______ Ļ_______ __’ _______ _ _Ļ_____ _Ļ_ __ ____________ ___________, ___’ _________ ___ Ļ___________ ______ ___ ___________.  Just. Mart. Dial. p. 3S9. ed. Lond.]

         Tertullian, to the bloody sacrifices, opposes pure prayer:* not a word of pure bread and wine, as a Christian sacrifice in opposition to the other.  But in another place, where he again recommended prayer sent up from a chaste body, an innocent soul, and a sanctified spirit, he adds, not worthless grains of frankincense, the tears of an Arabian tree, nor two drops of wine.**  He must have been very imprudent, not to say worse, in touching upon so tender an article as the two drops of wine, had he conceived that such in part was the real sacrifice of every Christian communicant at the holy altar.

         *[Sacrificamussed quomodo Deus praecepit pura prece: non enim eget Deus, conditor universitatis, odoris, aut sanguinis alicujus.”  Tertull. ad Scap. c. p. 69.  Compare my Review, above.]

         **[Offero ei opimam et majorem hostiam; quam ipse mandavit: orationem de carne pudica, de anima innocenti, de Spiritu Sancto profectam: non grana thuris unius assis, Arabicae arboris lacrymas, nec duas meri guttas, etc.  Tertull. Apol. c. xxx. p. 277.  Cp. Arnob. lib. vi. p. 190. edit. Lugd. Bat.]

         Origen, [Decet enim Deo immolari victimam cordis, et hostiam contribulati spiritus, non carnis et sanguinis jugulari. Origen. in Num. Hom. xxiv. p. 363.] Lactantius, [Deus non pecudis sanguine, sed homiuis pietate placatur. Lactant. Epit. 204.] Eusebius, [__ __’ _______, ____ __ _____ _______ _______ ___________ ______ __ _Ļ_ Ļ____ _________ ___.  Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. c. vi. p. 19: cp. pp. 20, 21, 23, 39; in Psal. p. 212.] Austin, [Non vult ergo sacrificium trucidati pecoris, sed vult sacrificium contriti cordis. Augustin. de Civit. Dei. lib. x. c. 5. p. 241.] all state the opposition in the same way; not between bloody animals and bloodless bread or wine (as they should have done upon the material scheme), but between bloody sacrifices and sacrifices of the spiritual kind, such as prayers, praises, and good works.  More particularly, Eusebius joins rational with unbloody, and calls it unbloody service, not unbloody elements, symbols, and the like.*  Eusebius further teaches that the unbloody sacrifices will obtain in heaven.**  From whence it is manifest, that he meant not the elements by that phrase, but religious services.  Neither has there been produced so much as a single passage from his writings, where that phrase must mean the material elements, or where it may not reasonably mean religious acts, services, performances.***  Attempts have been made upon a place or two,**** to warp them to another meaning, but so slight, and so easily seen through at once, that I shall not here trouble you with any particular confutation of them.  The error lies in confounding the material things with the religious work; and the sacrificial instruments with the sacrificial service; that is, with the sacrifice itself.  But I proceed.

         *[____________ _______ ___ _______ ______.  Evang. lib. i. c. 6. p. 20.  ________ ___ _______, _______ ___ _______ _Ļ_______ ____ ________.  Euseb. ibid. p. 21.]

         **[See the passage in my Review, above.  How sacrifices shall be offered in heaven, or what sacrifices, see Origen in Non). Hom. xviii. p. 359. ed. Bened.  Lactantius, Instit. lib. vi. c. 24. Augustin. tout. iv. p. 474; tom. vii. p. 61o. Gregor. Magn. tom. iii. p. 509. ed. Bened.]

         ***[_______ ________ ___ _________ ___________ __ _____ _________.  Euseb. de Vit. Constant. lib. iv. c. 45. p. 651.  ________ ___ _______ ______, ___ __’ _____ ___ _Ļ_______ _________, ____ _____ _________ ___ _Ļ_______ Ļ________ _____ _ _____ _ ________ _____; Euseb. de Laud. Constant. p. 768. ed. Cant. Cp.  Demonstr. Lib. i. c. 6, 10.]

         ****[See Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. p. 21.  N.B.  Eusebius asks, “Who but our Saviour ever taught his votaries to offer by prayer and an ineffable theology, these unbloody and rational sacrifices?”  That is, memorial services; which is Eusebius’s constant notion of the eucharistic sacrifices.  Demonstr. Evang. pp. 27, 38, 39, 40.  Compare my Review, above.]

         The Emperor Constantine, in a letter to King Saporis, says that Christians are content with unbloody prayers only, in supplicating God; and that prayer, free from blood and filth, together with the sign of the cross, was sufficient for victory.*  Here we have the epithet unbloody directly applied to religious services (not to material things); so that there is no arguing from the Pagan application of that epithet to the Christian, which was widely different, as their sacrifices were different.  It is in vain to plead that the difference lay only in this, that the Jews and Pagans used animal sacrifices, and the Christians bloodless bread and wine: for then, why did not the Fathers mention unbloody bread and wine, rather than unbloody prayers?  And why should they so industriously smother the true state of the competition (if it were true), and run off so wide that nobody, by their way of speaking, could suspect any other, than that the opposition entirely lay between bloody victims and unbloody services of lauds, prayers, and good works?  For those are what they directly call sacrifices, and what they expressly point to, as often as they specify or explain their unbloody sacrifices.

         *[__ ___ ______ ___________ Ļ___ _______ ____ _________ ... _Ļ_______ ____ ___ _____ __ ___ _______ ________ ... ___ _____ _______ _______ ___ __Ļ__.  Constantin. apud Sozom. lib. ii. c. 15. p. 63.]

         Cyril of Jerusalem in plain terms characterizes the spiritual sacrifice by unbloody service.*  Now, as sure as that a service** is not a substance, and a spiritual sacrifice is not a corporeal host, so sure is it, that the epithet of unbloody belongs not to the elements in that passage of Cyril.  There may be some doubt of what Cyril meant by the sacrifice of propitiation, in the same paragraph: but a wise interpreter will not therefore depart from what is clear and certain.  What I apprehend is that Cyril, by spiritual sacrifice and unbloody service, meant the consecratory service, whereby the elements became symbols of the real body and blood, symbols of the grand sacrifice.  When the elements were once so constituted exhibitive symbols of the grand sacrifice, which is the true sacrifice of propitiation, Cyril scrupled not to give them the name of what they represented and exhibited, by an usual metonymy of sign for thing: for, in the very same way, he there also gave them the name of Christ slain,*** and of the most tremendous sacrifice.****  The symbols therefore, in a figure, are there called the sacrifice of propitiation; but the spiritual sacrifice and unbloody service, spoken of just before, express that service of ours, that sacrifice which we actively offer up, in order to the consecrating the elements into holy symbols, exhibitive of the grand sacrifice to every faithful receiver.*****  So that the phrases of spiritual sacrifices and unbloody service do here retain their usual meaning; and Cyril has neatly contrived to insinuate to his readers a just notion of the two sacrifices of the Eucharist; the one actively offered, and the other passively received or participated. [See above.]

         *[____ __ _Ļ__________ ___ Ļ__________ ______, ___ __________ ________, _Ļ_ ___ ______ _______ ___ _______ Ļ___________ ___ ____ _Ļ__ ______ ___ _________ _______.  Cyril. Mystag. v. sect. 8. p. 327.  Compare Review, above.  “After that the spiritual sacrifice, the unbloody service, is finished, upon that sacrifice of propitiation we beseech God in behalf of the common peace of the churches.”]

         **[It has been sometimes pleaded (Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. p. 24) that service may import a material thing; and Exod. 12:26–27 is appealed to, as affording an example of it.  But the whole context shews that service there really means service, the celebration of the paschal sacrifice, the keeping that feast.]

         ***[_______ _____________ _Ļ__ ___ ________ ___________ Ļ__________, ____________ _Ļ__ _____ __ ___ ____ ___ _______Ļ__ ____.  Cyril. Mystag. p. 328.]

         ****[___ _____ ___ _____________ Ļ__________ ______.  Cyril. ibid. p. 327.  Cp. Ephraem. Syr. de Sacerdot. pp. 2, 3.  Chrysostom, tom. i. pp. 382, 383, 424; tom. vii. pp. 272, 310; tom. ix. p. 176; tom. xi. pp. 217, 218.  Nazianz. Orat. xvii. p. 273.]

         *****[Cyril’s whole context will set this matter clear.  ____________ ___ ________Ļ__ ____,  __ _____ Ļ_____ ___Ļ________ _Ļ_ __ Ļ_________, ___ Ļ_____ ___ ___ _____ ____ _______, ___ __ _____ ____ ________  Ļ_____ ___ __ __ ________ __ _____ Ļ_____, _____ ________, ___ ____________.  ____, ____ __ _Ļ__________ ___ Ļ__________ ______, ___ __________ ________, _Ļ_ ___ ______ _______ ___ _______ Ļ___________, _. _. _.  Here I understand _Ļ_ ___ ______ _______ to refer to ____ and ____ _______, before mentioned.  They are that sacrifice of propitiation into which the elements are supposed to be symbolically changed, by the spiritual sacrifice and unbloody service; that is, by the consecratory prayers and lauds, instrumentally, as by the Spirit efficiently.  In a word, _Ļ_ ___ ______ _______ means the same as if it had been said _Ļ_ ___ _______ _______ ___ _______.  And indeed, if ______ had referred to Ļ__________ ______ next preceding, Cyril, probably, would have said, _Ļ_ ___ ______ ______, not _______.]

         I pass on to Zeno of Verona, who lived about the same time with Cyril.  He makes use of the same distinction of bloody and unbloody, while recommending the sacrifices of Christians as preferable to the animal sacrifices of Jews and Pagans.*  By unbloody sacrifices, he understood clean thoughts and pure manners, intimating nothing of clean bread or pure wine, as set in competition with the bloody sacrifices.  A strange omission, had he been at all aware that the elements were the proper Christian sacrifice.

         *[Spiritali Deo sacrificium est necessarium spiritale, quod non ex sacculo, sed ex corde profertur quod non bromosis pecudibus, sed suavissimis moribus comparatur; quod non cruentis manibus, sed sensibus mundis offertur; quod non jugulatur ut pereat, sed, sicut Isaac, immolatur ut vivat.”  Zeno Veron. in Psalm 49.  This I take from Dodwell on Incense, pp. 97, 98.]

         Nazianzen speaks of his purifying the people at the mystical table, that is, in the Eucharist, with unbloody and perfect ordinances.*  From whence it is plain, that he thought not the epithet unbloody to be appropriated to material substance.  And this may help to explain another passage of his, relating to Julian, whom he represents as desecrating his hands by profane blood, thereby wiping out the consecration he had received in Baptism, and washing his hands of the unbloody sacrifice;** that is, of the consecration received in the eucharistic solemnities.  Had this plain sense of the place been thought on, there would have been no room left for the speculations which some have raised upon that passage. [See Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. p. 20.]

         *[___ ___Ļ____ ________ Ļ_________, | ___ _______ ____, __ ___ Ļ_______, | __ ____ ________ ___ ________ _______.  Nazianz. Iamb. vol. ii. p. 182.]

         **[___ ___ ______ ___________, ___ __________ ______ _Ļ_________, __’ __ _____ ______ ___________, ___ ___ Ļ________ ___ ___ ________.  Nazianz. Orat. i. p. 70.]

         There is another noted place of the same Father, where he speaks, I think, of the Pagans, set on by Arians, and defiling the unbloody sacrifices with the blood of men and of victims.*  I see no reason for interpreting unbloody sacrifices, in this passage, at all differently from the common usage of that phrase in Church writers of those ancient times.  Both the thought and the expression seem to be near akin to what Optatus uses, upon a like occasion, in relation to the rudeness and profaneness of some Donatists; who had overturned, as he terms it, the vows and desires of the people, together with the altars. [Vota et desideria hominum, cum ipsis altaribus, evertistis.  Iliac ad aures Dei ascendere solebat oratio.”  Optat. contr. Parmen. lib. vi. p. 289.]  I suppose, Gregory might as properly and as reasonably say, that the devotions of the people were polluted in one case, as Optatus might say, that they were overturned in the other case: the expressions are alike rhetorical.

         *[____________ _____________, ___ ___ ___________ ______ _____Ļ__ ___ ______ ______ __________.  Nazianz. Orat. xx. p. 348.]

         Asterius Amasenus, in a work ascribed to Gregory Nyssen, speaks expressly of incorporeal repentance and unbloody supplication, as obtaining in the Church, in the room of animal sacrifices.*  So that the epithet unbloody, for the first four centuries at least, appears not to have been so much as applied to the eucharistic elements, much less appropriated.

         *[_Ļ__ __ __ ____ _ ________ ______, _____ ___ ____ _ ________ __________, ___ _________ ______.  Greg. Nyssen. de Poenit. p. 170.  That work belongs to Asterius Amasenus of the fourth or fifth century.  Vid. Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. tom. viii. p. 160.]

         Some pieces have been quoted on this head, [Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. p. 20.] under the admired names of Athanasius and Chrysostom, which might have been worth examining, were they not now known to be spurious.*  But Chrysostom, in his undoubted writings, abundantly discovers how he understood the distinction which we are now upon, by his opposing the bloody antiquated sacrifices, not to clean elements, but to Christian virtues, lauds, prayers, and good works.**  Isidore Pelusiot uses the phrase of unbloody sacrifice, [Isidor. Pelusiot. lib. iii. Ep. 75. p. 284.] but without explication; so that his sense of it must be determined, either by his general doctrine elsewhere, or by the constant usage of contemporary writers.

         *[That ascribed to Athanasius is among the spuria of the Benedictine edition, tom. ii. p. 241.  The other ascribed to Chrysostom is among the spuria of the Benedictine edition, tom. v. p. 630.]

         **[Chrysostom. contra Jud. Hom. vi. p. 648; Hom. vii. pp. 617, 664. tom. i.  In Psalm 4. p. 20.  In Psalm 49. p. 231.  In Joann. Hom. lxxiv. p. 437, tom. viii.  In Heb. Hom. xi. pp. 115, 116. tom. xii.]

         St. Austin opposes to the antiquated bloody victims, the sacrifices of praise. [Augustin. ad Honorat. Epist. cxi. p. 439. tom. ii.]  Cyril of Alexandria says that the angels of heaven offer unbloody sacrifices. [Cyrill. Alex. de Rect. Fide, p. 160.  See my Review, above.]  A very clear passage, by which we may reasonably interpret his meaning in other passages [Cyrill. Alex. explicat. Anathem. xi. p. 156.  De Adorat. in Spiritu, lib. xiii. p. 457.  Epist. ad Nestor. p. 72.  In Malach. p. 830.] not so clear, or left doubtful and indeterminate.  I shall here take notice but of one, which runs thus: “The table bearing the shew bread (proposition of loaves) signifies the unbloody sacrifice, by which we are blessed, while we eat the bread from heaven, that is, Christ.”*  Here the phrase of unbloody sacrifice undoubtedly refers to the sacrament of the Eucharist, in and by which we are blessed, sanctified, etc.  It may be a name for some part of the service, or for the whole solemnity (as the whole is often denominated for some eminent part), but cannot reasonably be construed as a name for the elements, considered as a material sacrifice.  The bread from heaven, the thing signified, rather than the signs, would, by Cyril’s account, have the better title to that name.  But I apprehend, that the phrase of unbloody sacrifice in that place, denotes not the heavenly bread itself, nor the signs, but the memorial service performed by those signs, which is the usual signification of the phrase.  Upon the whole, I may presume to say, that no clear testimony hitherto, within the six first centuries, has been produced, whereby to prove that unbloody sacrifice was ever made a name for the elements of the Eucharist.  If the Fathers had entertained such a notion, no doubt but they could have expressed it, in words as clear and as full as the Church writers of the eighth** and following centuries expressed it; for they wanted no command of language: but since they never did so express it, but those later writers are (so far as appears) the first that did so; it is reasonable to conclude that such an use of that phrase came in about the time that transubstantiation (or something very like it) was creeping in.  And it is no great wonder if the signs then came to be looked upon as the unbloody sacrifice, when they were believed to be or to contain the very things signified, the real body and blood that was once sacrificed upon the cross. [See Sacramental Part of the Eucharist Explained, in the preceding Charge.]  I would not be understood, by my tracing the use of the phrase of unbloody sacrifice in so particular a manner, as if I thought that much depended upon it: for had the Fathers really denominated the elements by that name, it would amount only to this, that as the elements, by a metonymy, have been sometimes called tremendous sacrifice, often body and blood, or Christ slain, and the like; so, by the same metonymy, they have been likewise called unbloody sacrifice. But as the fact has not been proved, that the elements were ever so named by the ancient Fathers, I thought it proper first to consider the fact, and to give what light I could to it, because it may be of some use to know how the ancients understood and applied their terms or phrases.

         *[________ ___ _ ___Ļ___ ___ Ļ_______ ______ ___ _____, ___ __________ ______ __’ __ ___________, ___ _____ _________ ___ __ _______, ________ _______.  Cyrill. Alex. de Adorat. in Spirit. lib. xiii. p. 457.  N.B.  This passage, or part of it, [in Unbloody Sacrifice, p. 20.] is strangely rendered thus: “The table which had the shew bread denotes the unbloody sacrifice of the bread, or loaves.”  Here ___ _____, which belong to Ļ_______ going before (for Ļ_______ ___ _____ amounts to the same with ____ ______ ___ Ļ________), are separated from Ļ_______, and Ļ_______ alone is rendered shew bread, very oddly, that so ___ _____ may be thrown to ___ __________ ______, to make an unbloody sacrifice of loaves in the Eucharist: not considering, that _____, in the apodosis of the comparison, follows after, and means, not the elements, but the bread from heaven, that is, Christ, as Cyril himself interprets.]

         **[The Second Council of Nice (A.D. 787) speaks plainly enough: ____ _ ______ ____ __ _Ļ_______, _ Ļ______, ______ __Ļ__ ___ ___ ___ ______ Ļ____________ __________ ______, ___’ ____ __ ____ ___ ____ __ ____.  Concil. Nicaen. ii. Act. vi. pp. 370, 371.  So also had Damascene before, tom. i. p. 272.  So likewise Ambrosiaster, of the same century, [vid. Ondin. tom. i. p. 1858], in these words: “Offerimus tibi hanc immaculatam hostiam, rationabilem hostiam, incruentam hostiam, hunc panem sanctum, et calicem vitae aeternae. Pseud-Ambros. serm. v.  In Oudin. tom. i. 1904.  So the interpolated Sacramentary of Greg. I, and so other late liturgies.]

VII.  There was another ancient distinction similar to the former, though of somewhat less note; and that was the distinction of smoky and unsmoky sacrifice.  The Jewish and Pagan sacrifices were of the smoky, fiery kind; but the Gospel sacrifices were free from fumes and vapours, and inflamed only with the fire of the Holy Spirit.  It will be of use carefully to examine this distinction, on two accounts: first, in order to observe whether the Fathers opposed to the smoky sacrifices, which they rejected, clean bread and wine, or clean life; and, next, to see whether that fire of the Spirit, which they supposed to fall upon the Christian sacrifice, was conceived to come upon the eucharistic elements or upon the communicants.  By these two marks, we may as easily and as certainly discern what was or what was not the Christian sacrifice, in their estimation, as a tree is known by its fruits, or a face by its lines and features.

         1.  Let us see then, first, how the Fathers expressed the distinction, and what it was that they opposed to the smoky sacrifices of Jews and Pagans.

         Justin, according to his way of stating the Christian sacrifice, in opposition to incensings, among other articles, opposes only the sacrifice of praise. [Just. Mart. Apol. i. p. 19.  See above, and Review, above.]  Athenagoras does the like. [Athenag. pp. 48, 49.  See above.  Review, above.]  Irenaeus opposes a contrite heart, and prayers, [Irenaeus, lib. iv. c. 17. pp. 248, 249. ed. Bened.  See Review, above.] upon the strength of St. John’s authority in the Revelations. [Rev. 5:8.]  Clemens of Alexandria opposes to incensings, etc. a sacrifice of the heart, and of speech exhaled from holy souls, and the like. [Clem. Alex. Paedag. lib. iii. c. 12. p. 306.  Strom. ii. pp. 369, 370.  Strom. vii. p. 848.  Compare Review, above.]  Tertullian opposes clean prayers. [Tertull. Apol. c. xxx. p. 277.  Ad Scap. c. ii. p. 69.  See above, and Review, above.]  So does Origen. [Origen. contr. Cels. p. 755.  See Review, above.] Lactantius opposes to blood, fumes, and libations, a good mind, a clean breast, and innocent life. [“Illic nihil exigitur aliud quam sanguis pecudum, et fumus, et inepta libatio: hic bona mens, purum pectus, innocens vita.”  Lactant. Instit. lib. v. c. 19. p. 279.]  Hitherto no one thought of opposing clean bread or pure wine to the smoky sacrifices.

         Eusebius, speaking of Constantine, says; “To God, the king of all, he sent up gratulatory prayers, being a kind of unfiery and unsmoky sacrifices.”*  Elsewhere to blood, smoke, and nidor, he opposes purity of thought, sincerity of affection, soundness of principles, and the like. [Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. lib.  i. e. 6. p. 23; c. 8. p. 29; c. 10. p. 40.  See Review, above.]  The author of some commentaries under the name of Ambrose, who is supposed to have collected much from Chrysostom, opposes faith and prayers to the smoky sacrifices.**  Now, if the eucharistic elements had been the Christian sacrifice, how easy and how natural must it have been for the Fathers to flourish upon that topic; the cleanness, the pureness, the usefulness of bread and wine, or the intrinsic value of it (as some have done since [See Unbloody Sacrifice, part ii. p. 62.  Compare my Appendix above.]) beyond all the gold and silver of the Indies.  Indeed, how could they miss of it?  Or bow could they forbear to employ their finest strokes of oratory upon it?  Yet they were totally silent on that head.  Say, that their “disciplina arcani” in some measure restrained them from exposing their mysteries to strangers and aliens: yet that “disciplina” scarcely commenced so soon as some of these authorities. [Vid. Tentzelii Exercitationes: contr. Schelstrat. part ii. p. 32, etc.  Deylingius, Observat. Miscellan. pp. 407, 408.  Dallaeus De Cult. Relig. pp. 1085, 1113.  Calvoer de Rit. p. 639.]  Besides that, their mysteries were not unknown to Julian, for instance (who had been a Christian reader), nor to several other adversaries: and they would not have been silent, whatever the Christians themselves were.  Yet Julian charged not the Christians with bread sacrifice, but with no sacrifice [Vid. Cyrill. Alex. contr. Jul. lib. ix. pp. 307, 308. lib. x. p. 345. edit. Spanhem.] (excepting Christ’s), and so the general charge used to run.***  I know but one instance, and that as late as the fifth century, which looks at all like a charge of bread sacrifice upon Christians: and perhaps by that time there might be more colour for it (though colour only hitherto) than there had formerly been.  It is the instance of Benjamin the Jew, mentioned in Isidore, who objected, that the Church’s oblation appeared new and strange, with respect to bread’s receiving a sanctification, considering that the law had prescribed bloody sacrifices.  Isidore makes a very obscure reply, telling the Jew, that the law had prescribed blood and nidors, in the court of the temple without, but that within there was a table of bread (meaning the shew bread), which was not exposed to the view of the ancient people.****  It does not appear from this passage, either that Isidore admitted the bread for a sacrifice, or that Benjamin the Jew (who speaks only of bread’s being a sanctified offering) charged him with it.  But suppose it related to the name of sacrifice, as sometimes given to the elements in a passive view (metonymically called sacrifice, as representing and exhibiting the grand sacrifice received or participated in the Eucharist), it would not concern the question about the active sacrifices performed in the Eucharist, but the sacrifice received in it, symbolically received; and so the instance would be foreign to the point now in hand.*****  I shall have occasion to say more of the elements, as denominated a sacrifice, in the receptive way, and in a metonymical sense, as I go on, and therefore may pass it over now.

         *[__ Ļ_____ _______ ___ ___________ _____, __Ļ__ _____ _Ļ_____ ___ ___Ļ____ ______ ___Ļ__Ļ___.  Euseb. de Vit. Constant. lib. i. c. 48. p. 526.]

         **[Nonne altare est caeleste fides nostra, in quo offerimus quotidie orationes nostras, nihil habens carnalis sacrificii quod in cineres resolvatur, nec in fumos extenuetur, nec in vaporationes diffundatur.”  Pseud-Ambros. in Heb. 8.]

         ***[Justin. pp. 14, 19, 387, ed. Lond. Athenag. pp. 48, 49.  Clem. Alex. pp. 306, 369, 370, 688, 836, 848, 860.  Minuc. Fel. sect. 32. p. 183.  Tertull. Apol. 277.  Ad Scap. c. ii. p. 69.  Origen. contr. Cels. lib. viii. p. 755. ed. Bened.  Arnobius, lib. vi. p. 189.  Lactantius, Instit. lib. v. c. 19.  Epit. pp. 169, 204.  Eusebius, Demonstr. E yang. lib. x.]

         ****[______ ___ _____ ___ ___ _________ ____ Ļ________ _Ļ__________, _Ļ_____ _____ ___ ________ ___Ļ_______, ___ _____ ______ ___ ______ _________.  ___ __ __ _______ ... ___ __ ______ ___ ___ _______ __ __ ____ ___ ____ Ļ__________ ___ __________ _____ ________ ________, ____ __ ______ _ ___ _________ ___Ļ___, _ __ Ļ_____ _______ ____  __ ___ _Ļ_____ _____, _ ___ __ __ ____ ___Ļ_______ ___ ___ ___________ ________ __ _____.  Isidor. Pelus. lib. i. Ep. 401. p. 104, alias 92.]

         *****[I may just take notice of another instance, sometimes pretended out of Origen; as if he had opposed an offering to God of bread to the sacrifices which Pagans offered to daemons.  See the passage in Review, above.  The strength of the objection lies only in a false rendering of that passage in Origen: the material words, justly rendered, run thus: “We eat the loaves brought, with thanksgiving and prayer over the things given.”  Bellarmine would translate Ļ____________ ______, “loaves offered,” understanding them as offered to God: whereupon Albertine makes this reflection: “Quod Bellarminus ambigue vertit oblatos, et de oblatione Deo facta, intelligit, id partim ex linguae Graecae ignorantia, partim ex praejudicio inepte supponit.”  Albertin. p. 362.]

         2.  Having observed what kind of Christian sacrifices were constantly opposed to the smoky and fiery sacrifices of Jews and Pagans (not pure and clean bread or wine, but pure heart and life), I am next to take notice what kind of fire the Christians acknowledged in their sacrifice, and how they interpreted it.  As Pagans boasted of their culinary fires, which consumed their sacrifices, Christians, in their turn, spike as highly of the fire of the Spirit: let us now see in what manner they managed that topic.

         Clemens of Alexandria, opposing the fire of the Spirit to the gross culinary fires, observes, that that spiritual fire does not sanctify the flesh (of animals), but sinful souls.*  The souls were the sacrifice in his account.  Upon the material scheme, had it been his, he must have said that the fire does not sanctify animal flesh, but bread and wine.

         *[_____ _’ _____ ________ __ Ļ__, __ __ ____, ____ ___ ___ __________ _____.  ___ __ Ļ_______ ___ ________, ____ __ ________ ________, __ ____________ ___ ___ _____ ___ ___________ [f. _________] __ Ļ__.  Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. p. 851.]

         Origen supposes every man to have his burnt sacrifice in himself, offered from the altar of his heart, which altar he himself fires, and keeps always burning:* that is to say, by the fire of the Spirit within, not by any fire from without, as in the case of the Jewish and Pagan burnt offerings.

         *[“Unusquisque nostrum habet in se holocaustum suum, et holocausti ipse succendit altare, ut semper ardeat.”  Origen. in Levit. Hom. ix. p. 243.]

         Jerome represents the man, his thoughts, words, and works sublimated, in a manner, by the fire of the Spirit, and, as it were, spiritualized into an heavenly composition, so as to become a most acceptable sacrifice unto God.*  The persons themselves, by his account are the sacrifice; and upon them the fire of the Spirit falls: whereas, had the elements been supposed the sacrifice, the fire must have fallen there, and the whole turn of the comparison must have been differently contrived.  Austin’s accounts are much the same with Jerome’s, while he supposes the old man to become in a manner extinct, and the sacrifice of the new man to be lighted up by the fire of the Spirit.**

         *[Ut corpus pinguis literae, quod significatur in lege, et prophetae nubilum igne Domini, hoc est, Spiritu Sancto (de quo dicit Paulus, Spiritu ferventes) in spiritualem et tenuem substantiam convertantur. ... Ut per ignem Spiritus Sancti omnia quae cogitamus, loquimur, et facimus, in spiritualem substantiam convertantur, et hujuscemodi Dominus delectatus sacrificiis placabilis fiat. Hieronym. in Ezech. xliv. pp. 1021, 1022.]

         **[“Extincto vel infirmato per poenitentiam vetere homine, sacrificium justitiae, secundum regenerationem novi hominis, offeratur Deo; cum se offert ipsa anima jam abluta, et imponit in altare fidei, divino igne, id est, Spiritu Sancto, comprehendenda.”  Augustin. in Psalm 4. p. 14. tom. iv.  Cp. tom. v. pp. 973, 976, and Gaudentius Brix. de Exod. 2. p. 807.  “Totos nos divinus ignis absumat, et fervor ille totos arripiat.  Quis fervor?  De quo dicit Apostolus, Spiritu ferventes.  Non tantum anima nostra absumatur ab illo divino igne sapientiae, sed et corpus nostrum, ut mereatur ibi immortalitatem.  Sic levetur holocaustum ut absorbeatur mors in victoriam. Augustin. in Psalm 50. p. 474.]

         The most eloquent Chrysostom frequently flourishes upon the same topic.  In one place, elegantly describing the nature and excellency of self-sacrifice, he proceeds to speak of the fire which comes upon it, as being of a very new and uncommon kind, such as subsists not upon wood, or material fuel, but is self-subsisting, lives of itself, and gives life to the sacrifice, instead of consuming it.*  Most certainly he thought not of the material elements: for he excludes all such gross fuel; neither were the elements capable of receiving life by the fire of the Spirit.  Cyril of Alexandria reasons on this head exactly the same way, mysticizing the fire, and appropriating it to the persons considered as the sacrifice. [Cyrill. Alex. contra Jul. lib. x. p. 345.  Compare my Review, above.]  What the Fathers aimed at. in all was, to point out something in the Christian sacrifices correspondent or analogous to the ordinary sacrificial fires of the Pagans, and to the holy fire of the Jews, but yet far exceeding both, in purity, dignity, and energy.

         *[______ ___ _____ ___ ______ _ ______  ___ ___ Ļ________ ___ Ļ____ _ ___Ļ__, ____ ___ _____ ______ ___ ____ _Ļ_________, ___’ ____ ___’ _____ __ __ Ļ__ __ ________, ___ ____ _________ __ _______, ____ ______ ____ ___Ļ____.  Chrysostom. in Rom. Hom. xx. p. 657. tom. ix.  Cp. de Sacerdot. lib. iii. p. 383. tom. i.  Item de Poenitent. Hom. ix. p. 349. tom. ii.  Item de Beat. Philogon. Hom. vi. p. 500. tom. i, et in Heb. Hom. xi. pp. 115. 116. tom. xii.  Item, tom. i. pp. 648, 671.]

         But perhaps it may be here asked, Do not the same Fathers often speak of the Holy Spirit’s coming upon the eucharistic elements, as well as upon the persons of the communicants?  It is very certain that they do; for they supposed the Holy Ghost to consecrate, or sanctify, the elements into holy signs, or sacred symbols, representative and exhibitive of the body and blood of Christ: not to make holocausts or sacrifices of them, but sacraments only [See Sacramental Part of the Eucharist Explained in the preceding Charge, etc.]; signs of the grand sacrifice, spiritually given and received in and through them.  Therefore the Fathers do not speak of the fire of the Spirit, as inflaming or warming the elements; neither could they with any propriety or aptness do it: if there be any chance expression seeming to look that way,* it can be understood only of the gift of the Spirit accompanying the elements to every worthy communicant.  Upon the whole, it is manifest that when the Fathers opposed their sacrificial fire (viz. the fire of the Spirit) to the sacrificial fires of Jews and Pagans, they supposed it to enlighten, inflame, and spiritualize, not the elements, but the persons: therefore the persons were the true and acceptable sacrifices, living sacrifices, burning and shining holocausts.

         *[There is a passage of Ephrem Syrus, which has been thought to contain some such meaning: “Christus Salvator noster ignem et spiritum manducandum atque bibendum praestitit nobis carne vestitis, corpus videlices, et sanguinem suum.”  Ephr. Syrus, de Natura Dei Incomprehensibili, p. 682.  But “ignis” there seems to mean the Logos, received with the Spirit; received, not by the elements, but by the persons upon their partaking of the elements.  Vid Albertin. pp. 453, 454.  The same is received in Baptism also.]

VIII.  There was another ancient, but less noted, distinction of sacrifice, into false and true; or into untrue and true, which amounts to the same.

         Philastrius, speaking of the Jewish sacrifices, observes, that they were not perpetual, nor true, nor salutary. [Necessitate indocilitatis cogente, sacrificia temporalia, non perpetua, nec vera fuerunt indicta Judaeis, nec salutaria. Philastr. Haer. cix. p. 221.]  That is to say that though they had truth of propriety, and were, properly speaking, sacrifices, yet they had not truth of excellency, as the Christian sacrifices have.  Justin Martyr, long before, had hinted the same thought. [Just. Mart. Dial. p. 389.]  And so also had Lactantius in opposing the true sacrifices of Christians to the false ones (though he does not expressly so call them) of Jews and Pagans. [Lactant. Epit. pp. 169, 204, 205.]  St. Austin expresses the distinction of false and true in plain terms; opposing the true Christian sacrifice, performed in the Eucharist, to all the false sacrifices of the aliens. [Huic summo veroque sacrificio cuncta sacrificia falsa cesserunt. Augustin. de Civit. Dei, lib. x. c. 20. p. 256.  Compare my Review, above.]  The context may perhaps make it somewhat doubtful, whether true sacrifice in that place refers to the grand sacrifice, or to the eucharistic sacrifice, since they are both of them mentioned in the same chapter.  But I choose to refer the words to the nearer, rather than to the more remote antecedent, as most natural, and therefore most probable: and the commendation there given to the true sacrifice, by way of preference, runs no higher, than what he elsewhere says of the sacrifice of the Church offered in the Eucharist.  That sacrifice Austin prefers,* under the name of “true,” before the false sacrifices both of Jews and Pagans.

         *[“Hujus autem praeclarissimum atque optimum sacrificium non ipsi sumus: hoc est civitas ejus: cujus rei mysterium celebramus oblationibus nostris.  Cessaturas enim victimas, quas in umbra futuri offerebant Judaei: et unum sacrificium Gentes a solis ortu usque ad occasum, sicut jam fieri cernimus oblaturas, per Prophetas oracula increpuere divina. Augustin. de Civit. Dei, lib. xix. cap. 23. tom. vii.  “Unde et in ipso verissimo et singulari sacrificio, Domino Deo nostro agere gratias admonemur. Augustin. de Spir. et Lit. c. 11. p. 94. tom. x.  Cp. de Civit. Dei, lib. x. c. 6. p. 243. tom. vii.  Et contr. Advers. Lig. lib. i. c. 18. p. 568. tom. viii.]

         I may just note by the way, that there is another sense of false sacrifice to be met with in Cyprian, which belongs not to this place; for he understood schismatic sacrifices; which he calls false and sacrilegious sacrifices, as offered in opposition to the true pastors. [Dominicae hostiae veritatem per falsa sacrificia profanare. Cyprian. de Unit. Eccles.  “Sacrilega contra verum sacerdotem sacrificia offerre.”  Cyprian. Ep. 69.]  The Jewish and Pagan sacrifices were denominated false, in such a sense as we speak of a false diamond, or false money, meaning counterfeit, figure, imitation: schismatic sacrifices are called false in such a sense as we say a false title, a false patent, or the like.  But enough of this.

IX.  Hitherto I have been considering such names of distinction as served to discriminate the Christian sacrifices from the sacrifices both of Jews and Pagans.  I proceed next to some other distinctions which respected only the Jewish sacrifices as opposed to the sacrifices of the Gospel.  Hereto belongs the distinction between old and new; which we meet with first in Irenaeus of the second century:* who appears to understand the new oblation of the offices of piety and benevolence performed at the Christian altar.**  The sum of his doctrine is, that the old sacrifices which the law required, and which even then had the second place only, have now under the Gospel no place at all; and that the true sacrifices which then had the first place, have now the sole place under a new form, with many new and great improvements.  The service, not the elements, are with him the new oblation.***

         *[Novi Testamenti novam docuit oblationem, quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis accipiens, in universo mundo offert Deo, ei qui alimenta nobis praestat, primitias suorum munerum in Novo Testamento. Iren. lib. iv. c. 17. p. 249.  Compare my Review, above.]

         **[The following words of Origen are a good comment upon what is said by Irenaeus: “Si quis vel egentibus distribuat, vel faciat aliquid boni operis pro mandato, munus obtulit Deo. Origen. in Num. Hom. xi. p. 311.  Compare Review, above.]

         ***[Irenaeus hath plainly said, Deus in se assumit bonas operationes nostras.”  Iren. lib. iv. c. 18. p. 251.  But where hath he said, “Deus in se assumit panem nostrum et vinum nostrum, or pecuniam nostram”?  Nowhere.]

         Cyprian, after Irenaeus, has the same distinction, under the terms of “old” and “new”; observing, that by the accounts given in the Old Testament, the old sacrifice was to be abolished to make way for the new. [Quod sacrificium vetus evacuaretur, et novum celebraretur.”  Cyprian. Testim. lib. i. c. 16.]  He refers to Psalm 50:13, 23; Isaiah 1:11, 4:6; Mal. 1:10.  Not that every text there cited directly asserted so much; for at the same time that the prophets spake slightly of the old sacrifices, in comparison, yet God required a religious observance of them: but since those sacrifices were so slightly spoken of, even while their use and obligation remained, that single consideration was sufficient to intimate that they were to cease entirely under a more perfect dispensation.  So the Fathers understood that matter; and therefore those texts out of the Psalms, and out of the Prophet Isaiah, with others of like kind, were not foreign, but were conclusive and pertinent, with respect to the purpose for which they were cited.  They did not only prove that the new were then comparatively better than the old, but that a new and better dispensation should admit of no other* but the best.  This I hint, to prevent any one’s imagining, because material sacrifices obtained along with spiritual then, though the spiritual were preferred, that therefore so it may be now, under the last and most perfect economy, where the circumstances are widely different.  But I return.

         *[“Prayer and sacrifice, strictly so called, were both acts of worship; but prayer more excellent than sacrifice, because sacrifice was a rite of prayer, and a rite which God required no longer than till that most precious sacrifice of the Son of God was offered for us: the merit of which alone it is, that made the prayers of good men in all ages acceptable.”  Claget on the Worship of the Blessed Virgin, vol. ii. p. 189. fol. edit.]

         Cyprian, among the new sacrifices, reckons the sacrifice of praise, the sacrifice of righteousness, spiritual incense, that is, prayers, and the pure offering, whatever it means. [See the meaning of the pure offering, mentioned in Malachi, explained by Tertullian and Eusebius, cited in Review, above.]

         Eusebius mentions the new mysteries of the New Testament, contained in the unbloody and rational sacrifices.*  From whence appears the vanity of arguing (as some have done)** that the new sacrifice, spoken of by the Fathers, could not mean spiritual sacrifice, which had obtained long before: for it is certain fact, that the Fathers did so understand and so apply the name of new sacrifice; and therefore it is reasoning against fact, or disputing against the Fathers themselves, to argue in that way.  Besides that the argument may very easily be retorted, since neither material sacrifice, nor bread sacrifice, nor wine sacrifice, could be reckoned altogether new: for they obtained under the old, that is, under the Jewish economy. [Exod. 29:40, 5:11–13.  Levit. 2:4, etc.  Numb. 27:13–14.  Compare Brevint on the Mass, pp. 116, 121.  Kidder, p. 93, new edit. fol.]  In one sense, indeed, they are new (which is no commendation of them), they are new Christianity, having been unknown in the Church for six whole centuries or more, and not brought in before the late and dark ages: probably, about the time when material incense came in, under the notion of a Christian sacrifice. [See Christian Sacrifice Explained, Appendix, p. 495.  Compare Dodwell on Incensing, p. 222.  Claget on the Worship of the Blessed Virgin, p. 188. vol. ii. in fol.]  But of this I may say more in another article below.  I shall only add here, that St. Austin called the cross sacrifice, Christ’s body and blood, as participated, the new sacrifice. [Ut jam de truce commendaretur nobis caro et sanguis Domini, novum sacrificium.”  Augustin. in Psalm. 33. p. 211. tom. iv. ed. Bened.]

         *[___ __ __ _____ ____ ____________ _______ ___ _______ ______ ____ _____ ________ ___ ____ ___ ______ ________.  Euseb. Demonstr. Evang. lib. i. c. 6. p. 20.  ______ ______, ____ ___ ______ ________.  Ibid. cap. 10.  He explains the meaning of new, lib. i. c. 6. p. 16.]

         **[Bellarmine de Eucharist. pp. 749, 751.  Compare Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. pp. 268, 269.  That pretense has been often answered by learned Protestants, Peter Martyr. contr. Gardin. p. 54.  Jewel against Hard. p. 421.  Bilson, p. 696.  Hospinian, p. 568.  Chrastovius de Missa, lib. i. p. 57.  Mason, 585.  Du Moulin. Buckl. 432.  Rivet. Cathol. 106.  Buddaeus, Miscel. Sacr. tom. i. p. 54.  Deylingius, Sacr. pp. 98, 99.]

X.  I proceed to another distinction, as considerable as any before mentioned; and that is of legal or literal, and spiritual or evangelical.  Indeed, the word spiritual may, and sometimes has been, opposed to material or corporeal; and so far the distinction would resolve into article the fifth, before considered under the names of material and immaterial: but here I consider the name of spiritual under another conception, as opposed to literal and legal.  The New Testament itself often distinguishes between the letter and the spirit, [Rom. 2:29, 7:6, 8:2; 2 Cor. 3:6.  Compare Christian Sacrifice Explained, p. 416, and Glassius’s Philolog. Sacr. p. 1427.] that is, between the Law, which is the outward shell, and the Gospel, the inward kernel.  This distinction may be otherwise expressed by the words carnal and spiritual: for the word flesh is frequently a Scripture name for the external and legal economy, [Rom. 4:1.  2 Cor. 5:16.  Gal. 3:3, 4:23, 29.  Phil. 3:4.  Heb. 7:16.  Tertullian expresses the distinction by the words “carnalia et spiritalia.”  Adv. Jud. cap. v. p. 188.  So also Jerome on Malachi; and probably some others.] as opposed to the spirit, which is the name for the Gospel, as before hinted.  Earthly and spiritual mean the same with the other. [Tertullian uses the distinction of “terrene” and “spiritual”.]  Typical and true is but another way of wording the same distinction [Irenaeus particularly uses the distinction of “typical” and “true,” lib. iv. cap. 17.  Note, that the truth of a thing, in Scripture phrase, means the true interpretation of it.  Dan. 7:16.] between legal and evangelical, as the Law was a type or prefiguration of Gospel blessings, and as figure is opposed to truth.

         Symbolic and true differs from the other, only as a type differs from a symbol, or as a particular from a general: for a type, strictly, is a figure of things future, as before noted; whereas a symbol is a figure of things past, present, or to come.  So that both are figures, and as such are opposed to truth, like as shadows to substance.  In short, the Jewish sacrifices were comparatively literal, carnal, terrene, typical, symbolical; and the Christian sacrifices are spiritual and true: such is the import of the present distinction, variously expressed in Scripture or in Church writers.

         St. Peter uses the name of spiritual sacrifice, [1 Pet. 2:5.] in such a sense as spirit and truth are opposed to type, figure, shadow, symbol, or emblem: for he understood it in the same way as he understood the Church to be a spiritual house, and the Jewish temple to have been an emblem or figure of it.  So much appears from St. Peter’s context.  The Fathers took their hints from the Apostle: and their notion of spiritual sacrifice appears conformable thereto, as being regulated by it, and copied from it; only taking in St. Paul’s account of reasonable service, [Rom. 12:1.] and our Lord’s own rule of worship “in spirit and in truth,” [John 4:24.] and the several other descriptions given in the New Testament of evangelical sacrifice.  There were two things pointed to by the legal sacrifices; our Lord’s sacrifice, and ours; his propitiating merits, our qualifying duties or services.  The truth of this matter may best appear by a distinct enumeration of particulars, as follows:–

         1.  The legal incense pointed to the perfume of Christ’s mediation, [Rev. 8:3–4.  Vid. Vitringa in loc.  Wolfius in loc.  Lightfoot, vol. ii. p. 1260.  Outram, p. 359.] and at the same time to the prayers of the saints. [Rev. 5:8.  Vid. Vitringa in loc.  Dodwell on Incensing. p. 36, etc.  Outram, p. 357.]  In these it centered, in these it terminated: and thus the material incense is now spiritualized into the evangelical sacrifice of prayer.

         2.  The blood of the ancient sacrifices typically referred to the blood of Christ; which none can dispute: but it seems withal, that it symbolically referred to the blood of martyrs, who sacrifice their lives unto God. [Rev. 6:9.  Vid. Vitringa in loc.  Zornius, Opusc. Sacr. tom. ii. pp. 536–561.  Biblioth. Antiq. tom. i. p. 505.  Outram, p. 181.]

         3.  The mincha of the Old Testament had a typical aspect to Christ, as all the sacrifices had: but it seems likewise to have had a symbolical aspect to the oblation of Christ’s mystical body, the Church. [Rom. 15:16.  Vid. Vitringa in Isa. 66:20. p. 950.]

         4.  The daily sacrifice looked principally to our Lord’s continual intercession: but it appears to have been likewise a kind of emblem or symbol of Christian faith and service. [Phil. 2:17.  Vid. Vitringa de vet. Synagog. l. i. c. 6. pp. 70, 71.  Wolfius in loc.  Cp. Rom. 12:1.]

         5.  The Levitical memorial typified the sweet odor [Ephes. 5:2.  Cp. Deylingius’s Observ. Sacr. tom. i. p. 315.] of Christ: but in symbolical construction it seems also to have pointed to prayers and benevolent works. [Acts 10:4.  Phil. 4:18.]

         6.  Sacrifices in general, typically looking to Christ, are symbolically interpreted of almsdeeds. [Heb. 13:16.  Vid. Wolfius in loc.]

         7.  The animal sacrifices of the old law, pointing to the grand sacrifice, appear to have had a secondary, symbolical aspect to the calves of the lips. [Hosea 14:2.  Heb. 13:15.]

         8.  Libations of wine, typifying the blood of Christ, are represented as emblems of pouring forth one’s blood in martyrdom. [Phil. 2:17.  2 Tim. 4:6.  Cp. Deyling. Observat. Sacr. tom. ii. p. 547, etc.  Zornius, Opusc. Sacr. tom. ii. p. 48, etc.]

         9.  Lastly, the mactation of animals for sacrifice is interpreted of mortifying our lusts and passions. [Rom. 6:6.  Col. 3:5.  See Dodwell on Incense, p. 34, and Cranmer against Gardiner, p. 109, alias pp. 422, 423.]

         Thus has the New Testament itself unfolded the mystical intendment of the Law; giving us the spirit instead of the letter, truth for figure, and, in the room of the antiquated signs, the things themselves signified by them.  Upon this principle, the Fathers of the Church constantly believed and taught, that the legal sacrifices were not barely typical of the sacrifice of the cross, but were signs also and symbols of the evangelical sacrifices offered up by Christians;* and were to be considered as semblages to realities, or as shadows to substance, or as flesh to spirit.  It remains only, that we inquire what they understood the spiritual sacrifice to be; for as to the legal sacrifices, every one knows what they were, being so particularly set forth, and so minutely described in the Old Testament, and referred to also in the New.

         *[Irenaeus, lib. iv. c. 7. ed. Bened.  Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. p. 849, ed. Oxon.  Origen. in Levit. Hom. ii. p. 191. edit. Bened.  Nazianz. Orat. xxxviii. p. 484.  Chrysostom. in Heb. Hom. xi. pp. 807, 808.  Augustin. tom. vii. pp. 241, 242, 255; viii. 345, 586; x. 94.  Pseud-Ambros. in Heb. viii. p. 447.]

         Now as to the spiritual sacrifices, besides what is said of them in both Testaments, [See my Review, above.] the Fathers have so plainly deciphered them, and so distinctly enumerated them, that there can be no reasonable question made as to what sacrifices they intended by that name.  I have elsewhere traced this matter from Father to Father, through the first four centuries, [Ibid. pp. 347–426.] and I need not repeat here: only I may add two or three authorities to the many before cited, for confirmation.

         Origen is very full and express in his accounts of spiritual sacrifice.*  Chrysostom is so minute and particular in specifying what the spiritual sacrifices are, that nothing can be more so.**  He does it by giving in a catalogue of Christian virtues or graces: those are the spiritual sacrifices, in his estimation.  When he says, they need no instruments, nor are confined to place, he is to be understood of the virtuous habits resting in the mind, and which, if all opportunities of outward exercise were wanting, would still be spiritual sacrifices; so that they do not absolutely need instrument or place, as material sacrifices do.  And when they do need both, as to the outward exercise of those virtues or religious habits, still it is the inward heart, rather than the outward work, which is properly the acceptable sacrifice.  Such is Chrysostom’s account of this matter, and such the concurring sentiments of all antiquity.  Great pains have been taken [See Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. pp. 22–27, 61.] to find, if it were possible, some ancient voucher for a different account of spiritual sacrifice, or for some different application of that name: but not a single instance has been found, nor, I suppose, ever will be.

         *[Immolatio spiritalis est illa quam legimus, Immola Deo sacrificium laudis, et redde Altissimo vota tua. Psalm 50:14.  “Laudare ergo Deum, et vota orationis offerre, immolare est Deo.”  Origen. in Num. Hom. xi. p. 311. tom. ii. ed. Bened.: cp. pp. 191, 205, 248, 363, 418, 563.]

         **[__ __ _____ _ ______ _______; __ ___ _____, __ ___ Ļ________.  Joan. 4:24.  ___ __ ______ _______, ___ __ ______ _______, __ __Ļ__.  __ __ _____ _Ļ_______, _________, __________, __________, __________, __Ļ___________.  Chrysostom. in Heb. Hom. xi. p. 115. tom. xii.  __ __ ____ ______ _______; _ Ļ_________ ________, _ Ļ_______ _ ____ _______ ... _____ ___ Ļ____, _________ _______ ________.  _________, _____ ________.  Chrysost. in Rom. Hom. xx. p. 658. tom. ix.]

         Bellarmine pretended [Bellarmine de Eucharist. p. 751.  Compare Unbloody Sacrifice, part i. p. 25.] that Tertullian understood Abel’s sacrifice of a sheep to have been a spiritual sacrifice.  All invention and misconstruction. Tertullian did not, could not suppose so wild a thing; which would have been a flat contradiction to his known, certain, settled principles everywhere else in his works, [See some of the passages collected in Review, above.] and in that very work also which Bellarmine referred to, Tertullian does not say that Abel’s sacrifice was a spiritual sacrifice, but that Cain, the elder brother, was a type or prefiguration of the elder people Israel, and Abel a type or prefiguration of the younger people, the Christian Church; and that as their sacrifices were different (one being of the fruits of the ground, the other of the flock), so a difference in the sacrifices of the two different people was thereby intimated.*  Not precisely the same difference, but a difference: and as to the kind of difference, Tertullian sufficiently explains it afterwards, when, to the terrene sacrifices of the elder people, the Jews, he opposes the spiritual sacrifices of the younger people, the Christians, and specifies what they are; namely, the sacrifices of lauds, and of a contrite heart.**  But some may ask, how then did Tertullian make out what he pretended?  He made it out thus: that the Jewish and Christian sacrifices would be different, like as Cain’s and Abel’s were, and that one should be rejected, and the other accepted by God: so far the analogy or similitude holds, and no further.  For if we were to strain it with the utmost rigour, the Jewish sacrifices ought all to have been of the fruits of the ground, which is false in fact; and the Christian sacrifices ought to be animal sacrifices, which is manifestly absurd.  In short, as Tertullian has not said, nor could consistently say, that Abel’s sacrifice was a spiritual sacrifice; so neither can it, by any clear or just consequence, be concluded that he meant it, or had any thought of it.  But it is further pleaded, that material things have sometimes the epithet of spiritual or rational superadded; and why then may not a material sacrifice be a spiritual or rational sacrifice in a just sense of the word?  I answer: the question is not, whether the epithet spiritual may not in a just sense be applied to a material subject; for it is certain that it may, and St. Paul*** himself more than once so applies it: the question is not, how the single word spiritual may be applied, but what the phrase of spiritual sacrifice, according to Scripture usage, and according to Church usage, signifies.  It has not been shewn that either the New Testament or the ancient Fathers ever gave the name of spiritual sacrifice, either to the elements of the Eucharist, or to any material offerings. Spiritual sacrifice is a phrase of a determined meaning in the New Testament and ancient Church writers; and it is but a vain attempt to look for any real countenance from them, by retaining the phrase, unless the ideas which they affixed to it be retained also: for the doctrine will be different, though the words or phrases should still continue the same.

         *[“Sic et sacrificia, terrenarum oblationum et spiritualium sacrificiorum praedicata ostendimus.  Et quidem a primordio majoris filii, id est, Israel terrena fuisse in Cain praeostensa, et minoris filii Abel, id est, populi nostri, sacrificia diversa demonstrata.  Namque major natu Cain de fructu terrae obtulit munera Deo, minor vero filius Abel de fructu ovium suarum.  Respexit Deus in Abel et in munera ejus, in Cain autem et in munera ejus non respexit. ... Ex hoc igitur duplicia duorum populorum sacrificia praeostensa jam tunc in primordio animadvertimus. Tertull. adv. Jud. cap. v. p. 187.]

         **[Quod non terrenis sacrificiis, sed spiritalibus Deo litandum sit, ita legimus ut seriptum est; Cor contribulatum et humiliatum hostia Deo est: et alibi, Sacrifica Deo sacrificium laudis, et redde Altissimo vota tua.  Sic igitur sacrificia spiritalia laudis designantur, et cor contribulatum acceptabile sacrificium Deo demonstratur. Tertull. ibid. cap. v. p. 188.]

         ***[1 Cor. 10:3–4, 15:44.  N.B.  The word spiritual sometimes means the same with mystical, and may be applied to any material thing considered as a sign of something spiritual.  In such a sense, St. Paul speaks of spiritual (that is, mystical) meat, drink, rock.  In the like sense, we may, among the Fathers, meet with the phrases of mystical (or spiritual) oil, or waters, or bread, or cup, or supper, or table, meaning a material sign or symbol of something spiritual.  Cyprian seems to denote the elements by the name of spiritual and heavenly Sacrament.  Epist. lxiii. p. 108.  But still the phrase of spiritual sacrifice is not applied to them (so far as appears) among Church writers truly ancient: for in that phrase spiritual denotes not the sign of something else, but the very thing signified, like as in the phrase of spiritual house, parallel to it in the same verse of St. Peter (1 Peter 2:5).]

         If it should be suggested, after all, that the carnal, earthly, legal sacrifices meant only such sacrifices as wanted the inward service of the heart, and that spiritual sacrifices meant sacrifices offered from and with the spiritual service of the heart; it is obvious to reply that then the distinction which we are now upon could not have served the purpose for which it was brought, could not have shewn the absolute preference due to the Christian sacrifices above the Jewish.  The Jews, as many as were really good men, joined the sacrifice of the heart with the material offerings: and if that had been all the meaning which the Fathers went upon in their disputes with the Jews, the Jews might have retorted, irresistibly, that their sacrifices were as truly spiritual as the Christian sacrifices could be, and more valuable, as having all that spirituality which the Christians pretended to, and a rich offering besides, of bullocks, suppose, or rams.  The Fathers were wiser than to lay themselves open, and to expose the Christian cause, by any such meaning: besides that, their own repeated explications of the phrase of spiritual sacrifice are a flat contradiction to it.

XI.  I pass on to another celebrated distinction of sacrifice, into Aaronic and Mechizedekian; which served also to distinguish the Christian sacrifices from the Jewish ones, but in a view somewhat different from that of the distinction immediately preceding.  For as the distinction of literal and spiritual was intended chiefly to set forth the superior excellency of what Christians actively offered by way of sacrifice, so the present distinction of Aaronic and Melchizedekian was intended chiefly to set forth the superior excellency of what Christians passively receive, participate, or feast upon, under the name and notion of a sacrifice.

         Christians have an altar, whereof they partake.*  And that altar is Christ our Lord,** who is altar, priest, and sacrifice, all in one.  Under the law, those were different things, because any one of the legal figures alone could not represent Christ in all the three several capacities: but in him they are all united.  He performed his sacrifice in the active and transient sense, once for all, upon the cross: he distributes it daily in the passive and abiding sense of it, to all his true servants, to every faithful communicant.  His table here below is a secondary altar in two views; first, on the score of our own sacrifices of prayers, praises, souls, and bodies, which we offer up from thence;*** secondly, as it is the seat of the consecrated elements, that is, of the body and blood of Christ,**** that is, of the grand sacrifice, symbolically represented and exhibited, and spiritually there received; received by and with the signs bearing the name of the things.

         *[Heb. 13:10.  See my Review, above, etc.  And compare Dallaeus de Cult. Lat. Relig. lib. viii. cap. 24. p. 1117.  Patrick, Mens. Myst. p. 85.  Spanheim. Dub. Evan;. tom. ii. p. 843.  Mason de Minister. Anglic. p. 625.]