Paragraphs 28.1, 28.2, 28.3, 28.4

The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have among themselves one to another; but rather it is a Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s Death: Insomuch that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith, receive the same, the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of Christ, and likewise the Cup of Blessing is a partaking of the Blood of Christ. Transubstantiation (or the change of the Substance of Bread and Wine) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be Proved by Holy Writ, but it is repugnant to the plain words of Scripture, overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many Superstitions. The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper only after a Heavenly and Spiritual manner; and the mean whereby the Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper, is Faith. The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper was not by Christ’s Ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up and Worshipped.

In the Edition of these Articles in Edward the VIth’s Reign, there was another long Paragraph against Transubstantiation added in these words: Forasmuch as the Truth of Man’s Nature requireth, that the Body of one and the self-same Man cannot be at one time in divers places, but must needs be in one certain place; therefore the Body of Christ cannot be present at one time in many and divers places: And because as Holy Scripture doth teach, Christ was taken up into Heaven, and there shall continue unto the end of the World; a Faithful Man ought not either to Believe, or openly Confess the Real and Bodily Presence, as they term it, of Christ’s Flesh and Blood in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.

When these Articles were at first prepared by the Convocation in Queen Elizabeth’s Reign, this Paragraph was made a part of them; for the Original Subscription by both Houses of Convocation, yet extant, shews this. But the design of the Government was at that time much turned to the drawing over the Body of the Nation to the Reformation, in whom the old Leven had gone deep; and no part of it deeper than the belief of the Corporeal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament; therefore it was thought not expedient to offend them by so particular a Definition in this matter; in which the very word Real Presence was rejected. It might, perhaps, be also suggested, that here a Definition was made that went too much upon the Principles of Natural Philosophy; which how true soever, they might not be the proper subject of an Article of Religion. Therefore it was thought fit to suppress this Paragraph; though it was a part of the Article that was Subscribed, yet it was not published, but the Paragraph that follows, The Body of Christ, &c. was put in its stead, and was received and published by the next Convocation; which upon the matter was a full Explanation of the way of Christ’s Presence in this Sacrament; that he is present in a heavenly and spiritual Manner, and that Faith is the mean by which he is received. This seemed to be more Theological; and it does indeed amount to the same thing. But howsoever we see what was the Sense of the first Convocation in Queen Elizabeth’s Reign; it differed in nothing from that in King Edward’s Time: And therefore though this Paragraph is now no Part of our Articles, yet we are certain that the Clergy at that time did not at all doubt of the Truth of it; we are sure it was their Opinion: Since they subscribed it, though they did not think fit to publish it, at first; and though it was afterwards changed for another, that was the same in Sense.

In the treating of this Article, I shall first lay down the Doctrine of this Church with the Grounds of it; and then I shall examine the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, which must be done copiously: For next to the Doctrine of Infallibility, this is the most valued of all their other Tenets; this is the most Important in it self, since it is the main Part of their Worship, and the chief Subject of all their Devotions. There is not any one thing in which both Clergy and Laity are more concerned; which is more generally studied, and for which they pretend they have more plausible Colours, both from Scripture and the Fathers: and if Sense and Reason seem to press hard upon it, they reckon, that as they understand the Words of St. Paul, every thought must be captivated into the obedience of Faith.¹

In order to the expounding our Doctrine, we must consider the Occasion and the Institution of this Sacrament. The Jews were required once a Year to meet at Jerusalem, in remembrance of the deliverance of their Fathers out of Egypt.² Moses appointed that every Family should kill a Lamb whose Blood was to be sprinkled on their Door-posts and Lintels, and whose Flesh they were to eat; at the sight of which Blood thus sprinkled, the destroying Angel that was to be sent out to kill the First-born of every Family in Egypt, was to pass over all the Houses that were so marked: And from that passing by or over the Israelites, the Lamb was called the Lord’s passover, as being then the Sacrifice, and afterwards the Memorial of that Passover. The People of Israel were required to keep up the Memorial of that Transaction, by slaying a Lamb before the Place where God should set his Name; and by eating it up that Night: They were also to eat with it a Sallet of bitter Herbs and unleavened Bread; and when they went to eat of the Lamb they repeated these Words of Moses; That it was the Lord’s Passover. Now tho’ the first Lamb that was killed in Egypt, was indeed the Sacrifice upon which God promised to pass over their Houses, yet the Lambs that were afterwards offered, were only the Memorials of it; though they still carried that Name, which was given to the First: And were called the Lord’s Passover.

So that the Jews were in the Paschal-Supper accustomed to call the Memorial of a thing, by the Name of that of which it was the Memorial: And as the Deliverance out of Egypt, was a Type and Representation of that greater Deliverance, that we were to have by the Messias, the first Lamb being the Sacrifice of that Deliverance,³ and the succeeding Lambs the Memorials of it; so in order to this new and greater Deliverance, Christ himself was our Passover that was sacrificed for us: He was the Lamb of God that was both to take away the Sins of the World, and was to lead Captivity Captive: To bring us out of the Bondage of Sin and Satan into the Obedience of his Gospel.

He therefore chose the time of the Passover that he might be then offered up for us: And did Institute this Memorial of it, while he was celebrating the Jewish Pascha with his Disciples, who were so much accustomed to the Forms and Phrases of that Supper, in which every Master of a Family did officiate among his Houshold,⁴ that it was very Natural to them to understand all that our Saviour said or did, according to those Forms with which they were acquainted.

There were after Supper upon a new covering of the Table, Loaves of Unleavened Bread, and Cups of Wine set on it; in which though the Bread was very unacceptable, yet they drank liberally of the Wine: Christ took a Portion of that Bread and brake it; and gave it to his Disciples, and said, This is my body which is broken for you: Do this in remembrance of me. He did not say only, this is my body, but this is my body broken; so that his Body must be understood to be there, in its broken State, if the Words are to be expounded literally. And no reason can be assigned, why the Word Broken should be so separated from Body; or that the Bread should be literally his Body, and not literally his Body broken: The whole Period must be either literally True, or must be understood mystically. And if any will say, that his Body cannot be there but in the same state in which it is now in Heaven; and since it is not now broken, nor is the Blood shed or separated from the Body there, therefore the Words must be understood thus; This is my Body which is to be broken. But from thence we argue, that since all is one Period, it must be all understood in the same Manner: And since it is impossible that Broken and Shed, can be understood literally of the Body and Blood, that therefore the whole is to be mystically understood; and this appears more evident since the Disciples, who were naturally slow at understanding the easiest Mysteries, that he opened to them, must naturally have understood those Words as they did the other Words of the Paschal Supper, This is the Lord’s Passover. That is, this is the Memorial of it: And that the rather, since Christ added these Words, Do this in remembrance of me. If they had understood them in any other Sense, that must have surprized them, and naturally have led them to ask him many Questions: Which we find them doing upon Occasions that were much less surprizing, as appears by the Questions in the 14th of St. John, that discourse coming probably immediately after this Institution: Whereas no Question was asked upon this; so it is reasonable to conclude that they could understand these Words, This is my Body, no other way, but as they understood that of the Lamb, This is the Lord’s Passover. And by consequence as their celebrating the Pascha, was a constant Memorial of the Deliverance out of Egypt, and was a Symbolical Action by which they had a Title to the Blessings of the Covenant that Moses made with their Fathers; it was natural for them to conclude, that after Christ had made himself to be truly that, which the first Lamb was in a Type, the true Sacrifice of a greater and better Passover; they were to commemorate it and to communicate in the Benefits and Effects of it, by continuing that Action of taking, blessing, breaking and distributing of Bread: Which was to be the Memorial and the Communion of his Death in all succeeding Ages.

This will yet appear more Evident from the Second Part of this Institution, he took the Cup and blessed it; and gave it to them, saying, This Cup is the New Testament, or New Covenant in my blood: drink ye all of it. Or, as the other Gospels report it, This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins. As Moses had enjoined the sprinkling of the Blood of the Lamb, so he himself sprinkled both the Book of the Law, and all the People, with the Blood of Calves and of Goats,⁵ saying, This is the Blood of the New Testament (or Covenant) which God had enjoined you. The Blood of the Paschal Lamb, was the Token of that Covenant which God made then with them.

The Jews were under a very strict Prohibition of eating no Blood at all: But it seems by the Psalms, that when they payed their Vows unto God, they took in their Hands a cup of Salvation, that is,⁶ of an acknowledgment of their Salvation, and so were to rejoice before the Lord.

These being the Laws and Customs of the Jews, they could not without Horror have heard Christ when he gave them the Cup, say, This is my Blood: The Prohibition of Blood was given in such severe Terms, as that God would set his face against him that did eat blood,⁷ and cut him off from among his people: And this was so often repeated in the Books of Moses, that besides the natural Horror which Humanity gives at the mention of drinking a Man’s Blood, it was a special Part of their Religion to make no use of Blood; yet after all this, the Disciples were not startled at it: Which shews that they must have understood it in such a way, as was agreeable to the Law and Customs of their Country: and since St. Luke and St. Paul report the Words that our Saviour said when he gave it, differently from what is reported by St. Matthew and St. Mark, it is most probable that he spake both the one and the other; that he first said, This is my Blood, and then as a clearer Explanation of it, he said, This cup is the New Testament in my Blood: The one being a more easy Expression and in a style to which the Jews had been more accustomed. They knew that the Blood of the Lamb was sprinkled; and by their so doing they entred into a Covenant with God: And tho’ the Blood was never to be sprinkled after the first Passover, yet it was to be poured out before the Lord, in remembrance of that sprinkling in Egypt: In remembrance of that deliverance, they drank of the Cup of Blessing and Salvation, and rejoiced before the Lord. So that they could not understand our Saviour otherwise, than that the Cup so blessed, was to be to them the Assurance of a New Testament or Covenant which was to be established by the Blood of Christ; and which was to be shed: In lieu of which they were to drink this cup of Blessing and Praise.

According to their Customs and Phrases, the Disciples could understand our Saviour’s Words in this Sense, and in no other. So that if he had intended that they should have understood him otherwise, he must have expressed himself in another Manner: And must have enlarged upon it, to have corrected those Notions, into which it was otherwise most Natural for Jews to have fallen. Here is also to be remembred that which was formerly observed, upon the word Broken, that if the Words are to be expounded literally, then if the Cup is literally the Blood of Christ, it must be his Blood shed, poured out of his Veins and separated from his Body. And if it is impossible to understand it so, we conclude that we are in the Right to understand the whole Period in a mystical and figurative Sense. And therefore since a Man born and bred a Jew, and more particularly accustomed to the Paschal Ceremonies, could not have understood our Saviour’s Words, chiefly at the time of that Festivity, otherwise, than of a New Covenant that he was to make, in which his Body was to be broken, and his blood shed for the remission of Sins; and that he was to substitute Bread and Wine, to be the lasting Memorials of it, in the repeating of which, his Disciples were to renew their Covenant with God, and to claim a share in the blessings of it, this I say, was the Sense that must naturally have occurred to a Jew; upon all this, we must conclude, that this is the true Sense of these Words: Or, that otherwise our Saviour must have enlarged more upon them, and expressed his meaning more particularly. Since therefore he said no more than what according to the Ideas and Customs of the Jews, must have been understood as has been explained, we must conclude, that it, and it only, is the true Sense of them.

But we must next consider the importance of a long Discourse of our Saviour’s, set down by St. John, which seems such a preparation of his Apostles to understand this Institution literally,⁸ that the weight of this Argument must turn upon the meaning of that Discourse. The design of that was to shew, that the Doctrine of Christ was more Excellent than the Law of Moses; that though Moses gave the Israelites Manna from Heaven, to nourish their Bodies, yet notwithstanding that they died in the Wilderness: But Christ was to give his Followers such Food, that it should give them Life; so that if they did eat of it they should never die: Where it is apparent that the Bread and nourishment must be such as the life was; and that being Eternal and Spiritual, the Bread must be so understood: For it is clearly expressed how that Food was to be received; he that believeth on me hath everlasting life.⁹

Since then he had formerly said, that the Bread which he was to give, should make them live for ever; and since here it is said, that this Life is given by Faith, then this Bread must be his Doctrine: For, this is that which Faith receives. And when the Jews desired him to give them evermore of that Bread; he answered, I am the bread of life, he that comes to me shall never hunger,¹⁰ and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

In these words he tells them that they received that Bread by coming to him, and by believing on him. Christ calls himself that Bread, and says, that a Man must eat thereof, which is plainly a Figure; and if Figures are confessed to be in some Parts of their Discourse, there is no reason to deny that they run quite through it. Christ says, that this Bread was his flesh, which he was to give for the life of the world; which can only be meant of his Offering himself up upon the Cross for the Sins of the World: The Jews murmured at this and said, how can this Man give us his flesh to eat? To which our Saviour answers, That except they did eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man,¹¹ they had no life in them.

Now if these words are to be understood of a literal eating of his Flesh, in the Sacrament, then no Man can be saved that does not receive it: It was a natural Consequence of the expounding these Words of the Sacrament, to give it to Children; since it is so expresly said, that Life is not to be had without it. But the words that come next, carry this Matter farther; whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life: It is plain that Christ is here speaking of that without which no Man can have Life, and by which all who receive it have Life; if therefore this is to be expounded of the Sacrament, none can be damned that does receive it, and none can be saved that receives it not.

Therefore since eternal life does always follow the eating of Christ’s flesh, and the drinking his blood, and cannot be had without it; then this must be meant of an Internal and Spiritual feeding on him: For, as none are saved without that, so all are saved that have it. This is yet clearer from the words that follow, my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed: It may well be inferred that Christ’s Flesh is eaten in the same Sense, in which he says it is meat; now certainly it is not literally meat: For none do say that the Body is nourished by it; and yet there is somewhat Emphatical in this, since the word indeed is not added in vain, but to give weight to the Expression.

It is also said, He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood, dwells in me and I in him:¹² Here the description seems to be made of that eating and drinking of his Flesh and Blood; that it is such as the mutual indwelling of Christ and Believers is: Now that is certainly only Internal and Spiritual, and not Carnal or Literal: And therefore such also must the eating and drinking be.

All this seems to be very fully confirmed from the Conclusion of that Discourse, which ought to be considered as the Key to it all; for when the Jews were offended at the hardness of Christ’s Discourse, he said, It is the Spirit that quickneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:¹³ The words I speak unto you, they are Spirit and they are Life: Which do plainly Import, that his former Discourse was to be understood in a spiritual Sense, that it was a divine Spirit that quickned them, or gave them that eternal Life, of which he had been speaking: And that the Flesh, his natural Body, was not the conveyer of it.

All this is confirmed by the Sense in which we find eating and drinking frequently used in the Scriptures, according to what is observed by Jewish Writers; they stand for Wisdom, Learning, and all intellectual Apprehensions through which the Soul of Man is preserved, by the Perfection that is in them, as the Body is preserved by Food: So buy and eat, eat fat of things, drink of wine well refined.

Maimonides also observes,¹⁴ that whensoever eating and drinking are mentioned in the Book of Proverbs, that they are to be understood of Wisdom and the Law: And after he has brought several Places of Scripture to this Purpose, He concludes, that because this acceptation of eating, occurs so often and is so manifest, as if it were the primary and most proper Sense of the Word; therefore hunger and thirst stand for a privation of Wisdom and Vnderstanding: And the Caldee Paraphrast turns these Words, ye shall draw Water out of the Wells of Salvation, thus,¹⁵ ye shall receive a new Doctrine with joy from some select Persons.

Since then the Figure of eating and drinking was used among the Jews, for receiving and imbibing a Doctrine; it was no wonder if our Saviour pursued it in a Discourse, in which there are several hints given to shew us, that it ought to be so understood.

It is further observable, that our Saviour did frequently follow that common way of Instruction among the Eastern Nations, by Figures that to us would seem strong and bold. These were much used in those Parts, to excite the Attention of the Hearers, and they are not always to be severely expounded according to the full Extent that the words will bear. The Parable of the unjust Judge, of the unjust Steward, of the ten Virgins, of plucking out the right Eye, and cutting off the right Hand or Foot, and several others might be instanced. Our Saviour in these considered the Genius of those to whom he spoke: So that these Figures must be restrained only to that Particular, for which he meant them; and must not be stretched to every thing to which the Words may be carried. We find our Saviour compares himself to a great many Things; to a Vine, a Door, and a Way: And therefore when the Scope of a Discourse does plainly run in a Figure, we are not to go and descant on every Word of it; much less may any pretend to say, that some Parts of it are to be understood literally, and some Parts figuratively.

For instance, if that Chapter of St. John is to be understood literally, then Christ’s Flesh and Blood must be the Nourishment of our Bodies, so as to be meat indeed; and that we shall never hunger any more, and never die after we have eat of it: If therefore all do confess that those Expressions are to be understood figuratively, then we have the same reason to conclude that the whole is a Figure: For, it is as reasonable for us to make all of it a Figure, as it is for them to make those Parts of it a Figure, which they cannot conveniently expound in a literal Sense. From all which it is abundantly clear, that nothing can be drawn from that Discourse of our Saviour’s, to make it reasonable to believe, that the words of the Institution of this Sacrament ought to be literally understood: On the contrary our Saviour himself calls the Wine, after those Words had been used by him, the Fruit of the Vine, which is as strict a Form of Speech as can well be imagined, to make us understand that the Nature of the Wine was not altered: And when St. Paul treats of it in those two Chapters in which all that is left us besides the History of the Institution, concerning this Sacrament, is to be found, he calls it five times Bread, and never once the Body of Christ.¹⁶ In one Place he calls it the Communion of the Body, as the Cup is the Communion of the Blood of Christ. Which is rather a saying that it is in some sort and after a manner, the Body and the Blood of Christ, than that it is so strictly speaking.

If this Sacrament had been that mysterious and unconceivable Thing, which it has been since believed to be; we cannot imagine, but that the Books of the New Testament, the Acts of the Apostles, and their Epistles, should have contained fuller Explanations of it; and larger Instructions about it.

There is enough indeed said in them to support the plain and natural Sense, that we give to this Institution; and because no more is said, and the design of it is plainly declared to be to remember Christ’s death, and to shew it forth till he come, we reckon that by this natural Simplicity, in which this Matter is delivered to us, we are very much confirmed in that plain and easy Signification, which we put upon our Saviour’s words. Plain things need not be insisted on: But if the most sublime and wonderful Thing in the World, seems to be delivered in Words that yet are capable of a lower and plainer Sense, then unless there is a concurrence of other Circumstances, to force us to that higher meaning of them, we ought not to go into it; for simple Things prove themselves: Whereas the more extraordinary that any thing is, it requires a fulness and evidence in the Proof proportioned to the uneasiness of conceiving or believing it.

We do therefore understand our Saviour’s Institution thus, that as he was to give his body to be broken, and his blood to be shed for our Sins, so he intended that this his Death and Suffering, should be still commemorated by all such as look for remission of sins by it; not only in their Thoughts and Devotions, but in a visible Representation: Which he appointed should be done in Symbols, that should be both very plain and simple, and yet very expressive of that which he intended should be remembred by them.

Bread is the plainest Food that the Body of Man can receive; and Wine was the common nourishing Liquor of that Countrey: So he made choice of these Materials, and in them appointed a Representation and Remembrance to be made of his body broken, and of his blood shed; that is, of his Death and Sufferings till his Second coming: And he obliged his Followers to repeat this frequently. In the doing of it according to his Institution, they profess the Belief of his Death, for the Remission of their Sins, and that they look for his Second coming.

This does also import, that as Bread and Wine are the simplest of bodily Nourishments, so his Death is that which restores the Souls of those that do believe in him: As Bread and Wine convey a vital Nourishment to the Body, so the Sacrifice of his Death conveys somewhat to the Soul that is vital, that fortifies and exalts it. And as Water in Baptism is a natural Emblem of the Purity of the Christian Religion, Bread and Wine in the Eucharist are the Emblems of somewhat that is derived to us, that raises our Faculties and fortifies all our Powers.

St. Pàul does very plainly tell us, that unworthy receivers that did neither examine nor discern themselves, nor yet discern the Lord’s Body, were guilty of the body and blood of the Lord;¹⁷ and did eat and drink their own damnation: That is, such as do receive it without truly believing the Christian Religion, without a grateful acknowledgment of Christ’s Death and Sufferings, without feeling that they are walking suitably to this Religion that they profess, and without that decency and charity, which becomes so Holy an Action; but that receive the Bread and Wine, only as bare bodily Nourishments; without considering that Christ has instituted them to be the Memorials of his Death; such Persons are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ: That is, they are guilty either of a Prophanation of the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, or they do in a manner Crucify him again, and put him to an open shame; when they are so faulty as the Corinthians were, in observing this Holy Institution, with so little Reverence, and with such scandalous Disorders, as those were for which he reproached them.

Of such as did thus Prophane this Institution, he says farther, that they do eat and drink their own Damnation or Judgment; that is, Punishment; for the word rendred Damnation, signifies sometimes only temporary Punishments.

So it is said,¹⁸ that Judgment (the Word is the same) must begin at the House of God: God had sent such Judgments upon the Corinthians for those disorderly Practices of theirs, that some had fallen sick and others had died, perhaps by reason of their drinking to excess in those Feasts: But as God’s Judgments have come upon them, so the words that follow shew that these Judgments were only Chastisements, in order to the delivering them from the Condemnation, under which the World lies. It being said, that when we are judged we are chastened of the Lord,¹⁹ that we should not be condemned with the World. Therefore though God may very justly, and even in great Mercy punish Men who prophane this Holy Ordinance, yet it is an unreasonable Terrour, and contrary to the Nature of the Gospel Covenant, to carry this so far, as to think that it is an impardonable Sin; which is punished with eternal Damnation.

We have now seen the ill Effects of unworthy Receiving, and from hence according to that Gradation, that is to be observed in the Mercy of God in the Gospel, that it not only holds a Proportion with his Justice, but rejoyceth over it, we may well conclude that the good Effects upon the worthy receiving of it, are equal, if not superiour to the bad Effects upon the unworthy receiving of it: And that the Nourishment which the Types, the Bread and the Wine, give the Body, are answered in the Effects, that the thing signified by them, has upon the Soul.

In explaining this there is some diversity: Some teach that this Memomorial of the Death of Christ, when seriously and devoutly gone about, when it animates our Faith, encreases our Repentance, and inflames our Love and Zeal, and so unites us to God and to our Brethren, that I say when these follow it, which it naturally excites in all holy and good Minds, then they draw down the returns of Prayer, and a farther increase of Grace in us; according to the Nature and Promises of the New Covenant: And in this they put the Vertue and Efficacy of this Sacrament.

But others think that all this belongs only to the inward Acts of the Mind, and is not Sacramental: And therefore they think that the Eucharist is a federal Act, in which as on the one Hand we renew our Baptismal Covenant with God, so on the other Hand we receive in the Sacrament, a visible Consignation as in a Tradition by a Symbol or Pledge, of the blessings of the New Covenant, which they think is somewhat superadded to those returns of our Prayers, or of our other inward Acts.

This they think answers the nourishment which the Body receives from the Symbols of Bread and Wine; and stands in opposition to that of the unworthy Receivers, being guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord; and their eating and drinking that which will bring some judgment upon themselves. This they also found on these words of St. Paul, The cup of blessing that we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

St. Paul considers the Bread which was offered by the People, as an emblem of their Unity, that as there was one Loaf, so they were one Body; and that they were all partakers of that one Loaf: From hence it is inferred, that since the word rendred Communion, signifies a communication in fellowship, or Partnership, that therefore the meaning of it is, that in the Sacrament there is a distribution made in that Symbolical action of the death of Christ,²⁰ and of the benefits and effects of it. The Communion of the Holy Ghost, is a common sharing in the effusion of the Spirit; the same is meant by that, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit; that is, if we do all partake of the same Spirit: We are said to have a fellowship in the sufferings of Christ,²¹ in which every one must take his share. The communication, or fellowship of the mystery of the Gospel, was its being shared equally among both Jews and Gentiles; and the fellowship in which the first Converts to Christianity lived, was their liberal distribution to one another, they holding all things in common. In these and some other places it is certain, that Communion signifies somewhat that is more real and effectual, than merely mens owning themselves to be joined together in a Society; which it is true it does also often signify; and therefore they conclude that as in Bargains or Covenants, the ancient Method of them before Writings were invented, was the mutual delivering of some Pledges, which were the Symbols of that Faith, which was so plighted; instead of which the sealing and delivering of Writings is now used among us, so our Saviour instituted this in compliance with our frailty, to give us an outward and sensible Pledge, of his entring into Covenant with us, of which the Bread and Wine are constituted the Symbols.

Others think, that by the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ can only be meant, the joint owning of Christ and of his Death, in the receiving the Sacrament; and that no Communication nor Partnership can be inferred from it: Because St. Paul brings it in to shew the Corinthians, how detestable a thing it was for a Christian to join in the Idols Feasts: That it was to be a partaker with devils: So they think that the Fellowship or Communion of Christians in the Sacrament, must be of the same Nature, with the fellowship of devils in Acts of Idolatry: Which consisted only in associating themselves with those that worshipped Idols; for that upon the Matter was the Worshipping of Devils: And this seems to be confirmed by that which is said of the Jews,²² that they who did eat of the Sacrifices were partakers of the Altar; which it seems can signify no more, but that they professed that Religion of which the Altar was the chief Instrument; the Sacrifices being offered there.

To all this it may be replied, that it is reasonable enough to believe, that according to the Power which God suffered the Devil to exercise over the Idolatrous World, there might be some Inchantment in the Sacrifices offered to Idols; and that the Devil might have some Power over those that did partake of them: And in order to this St. Paul removed an Objection that might have been made, that there could be no harm in their joining to the Idol Feasts; for an Idol was nothing; and so that wstich was offered to an Idol could contract no defilement from the Idol, it being nothing: Now if the meaning of their being partakers with Devils imports only, their joining themselves in Acts of Fellowship with Idolaters, then the Sin of this would have easily appeared, without such a re-inforcing of the Matter: For, tho’ an Idol was nothing, yet it was still a great Sin to join in the Acts that were meant to be the Worship of this nothing: This was a dishonouring of God, and a debasing of Man. But St.Paul seems to carry the Argument farther; that how true soever it was that the Idol was nothing; that is, a dead and lifeless thing that had no Vertue nor Operation; and that by consequence could derive nothing to the Sacrifice that was offered to it: Yet since those Idols were the Instruments by which the Devil kept the World in Subjection to him, all such as did partake in their Sacrifices might come under the Effects of that Magick, that might be exerted about their Temples or Sacrifices: By which the Credit of Idolatry was much kept up.

And though every Christian had a sure defence against the Powers of Darkness, as long as he continued true to his Religion, yet if he went out of that Protection, into the Empire of the Devil, and joined in the Acts that were as a Homage to him, he then fell within the reach of the Devil and might justly fear his being brought into a Partnership of those magical Possessions or Temptations that might be suffered to fall upon such Christians, as should associate themselves in so detestable a Service.

In the same Sense it was also said,²³ that all the Israelites who did eat of the Sacrifices were partakers of the Altar: That is, that all of them who joined in the Acts of that Religion, such as the Offering their Peace-Offerings, for of those of that kind they might only eat, all these were partakers of the Altar: That is, of all the Blessings of their Religion, of all the Expiations, the Burnt-offerings and Sin-offerings, that were offered on the, Altar, for the sins of the whole Congregation: For that as a great Stock, went in a common Dividend among such as observed the Precepts of that Law, and joined in the Acts of Worship prescribed by it: Thus it appears, that such as joined in the Acts of Idolatry became partakers of all that Influence that Devils might have over those Sacrifices; and all that continued in the Observances of the Mosaical Law, had thereby a partnership in the Expiations of the Altar; so likewise all Christians who receive this Sacrament worthily, have by their so doing a share in that which is represented by it, the Death of Christ, and the Expiation and other Benefits that follow it.

This seemed necessary to be fully explained: For this Matter, how plain soever in it self, has been made very dark, by the ways in which some have pretended to open it. With this I conclude all that belongs to the first Part of the Article, and that which was first to be explained of our Doctrine concerning the Sacrament: By which we assert a real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ; but not of his Body as it is now glorified in Heaven, but of his Body as it was broken on the Cross, when his blood was shed and separated from it. That is, his Death with the merit and effects of it, are in a visible and federal Act, offered in this Sacrament to all worthy Believers.

By Real we understand True, in opposition both to Fiction and Imagination: And to those Shadows that were in the Mosaical Dispensation, in which the Manna, the Rock, the brazen Serpent, but most eminently the Cloud of Glory, were the Types and Shadows of the Messias, that was to come: With whom came Grace and Truth; that is, a most wonderful Manifestation of the Mercy or Grace of God; and a verifying of the Promises made under the Law: In this Sense we acknowledge a real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament: Though we are convinced that our first Reformers judged right, concerning the use of the Phrase real Presence, that it were better to be let fall than to be continued; since the Use of it, and that Idea which does naturally arise from the common acceptation of it, may stick deeper, and feed Superstition more, than all those larger Explanations that are given to it can be able to cure.

But howsoever in this Sense, it is innocent of it self, and may be lawfully used; though perhaps it were more cautiously done not to use it, since advantages have been taken from it, to urge it farther, than we intend it; and since it has been a snare to some:

I go in the next Place to explain the Doctrine of the Church of Rome, concerning this Sacrament. Transubstantiation does express it in one Word; but that a full Idea may be given of this Part of their Doctrine, I shall open it in all its Branches and Consequences.

The Matter of this Sacrament is not Bread and Wine: For, they are annihilated when the Sacrament is made. They are only the remote Matter, out of which it is made: But when the Sacrament is made, they cease to be: And instead of them, their outward Appearances or Accidents do only remain: Which though they are no Substances, yet are supposed to have a Nature and Essence of their own, separable from Matter: And these Appearances with the Body of Christ under them, are the Matter of the Sacrament.

Now though the Natural and Visible Body of Christ, could not be the Sacrament of his Body, yet they think his real Body being thus veiled under the Appearances of Bread and Wine, may be the Sacrament of his glorified Body.

Yet, it seeming somewhat strange to make a true Body the Sacrament of it self, they would willingly put the Sacrament in the Appearances; but that would sound very harsh, to make Accidents which are not Matter, to be the Matter of the Sacrament: Therefore since these words, This is my Body, must be literally understood, the Matter must be the true Body of Christ, so that Christ’s Body is the Sacrament of his Body.

Christ’s Body, though now in Heaven, is as they think, presented in every Place where a true Consecration is made. And though it is in Heaven in an extended State, as all other Bodies are, yet they think that Extension may be separated from Matter, as well as the other Appearances or Accidents are believed to be separated from it. And whereas our Souls are believed to be so in our Bodies, that though the whole Soul is in the whole Body, yet all the Soul is believed to be in every Part of it; but so that if any Part of the Body, is separated from the rest, the Soul is not divided; being one single Substance, but retires back into the rest of the Body: They apprehend that Christ’s Body is present after the manner of a Spirit, without Extension or the filling of Space; so that the Space which the Appearances possess is still a Vacuum, or only filled by the Accidents: For a Body without Extension, as they suppose Christ’s Body to be, can never fill up an Extension.

Christ’s Body in the Sacrament is denominated One, yet still as the Species are broken and divided, so many new Bodies are divided from one another; every crumb of Bread and drop of Wine that is separated from the whole, is a new Body, and yet without a new Miracle, all being done in consequence of the first great One that was all at once wrought.

The Body of Christ continues in this State, as long as the Accidents remain in theirs; but how it should alter is not easy to apprehend: The corruption of all other Accidents, arises from a change in the common Substance, out of which new Accidents do arise, while the old ones vanish; but Accidents without a Subject may seem more fixed and stable: Yet they are not so, but are as subject to Corruption as other Accidents are: Howsoever, as long as the Alteration is not total; though the Bread should be both musty and mouldy, and the Wine both dead and sour, yet as long as the Bread and Wine are still so far preserved, or rather that their Appearances subsist, so long the Body of Christ remains: But when they are so far altered that they seem to be no more Bread and Wine, and that they are corrupted either in part or in whole, Christ’s Body is withdrawn, either in part or in whole.

It is a great Miracle to make the Accidents of Bread and Wine subsist without a Subject; yet the new Accidents that arise upon these Accidents, such as mouldiness or sourness come on without a Miracle, but they do not know how. When the main Accidents are destroyed, then the Presence of Christ ceases: And a new Miracle must be supposed to produce new Matter, for the filling up of that space which the Substance of Bread and Wine did formerly fill: And which was all this while possessed by the Accidents. So much of the Matter of this Sacrament.

The Form of it is in the Words of Consecration, which though they sound declarative as if the thing were already done; This is my body and This is my blood: Yet they believe them to be productive. But whereas the common Notion of the Form of a Sacrament, is that it sanctifies and applies the Matter; here the former Matter is so far from being consecrated by it, that it is annihilated, and new Matter is not sanctified but brought thither or produced: And whereas whensoever we say of any thing this is, we suppose that the thing is, as we say it is, before we say it; yet here all the while that this is a saying till the last Syllable is pronounced, it is not that which it is said to be, but in the Minute in which the last Syllable is uttered, then the change is made: And of this they are so firmly persuaded, that they do presently pay all that Adoration to it, that they would pay to the Person of Jesus Christ, if he were visibly present: Tho’ the whole Vertue of the Consecration, depends on the Intention of a Priest: So that he with a cross Intention hinders all this Series of Miracles, as he fetches it all on, by letting his Intention go along with it.

If it may be said of some Doctrines, that the bare exposing them is a most effectual Confutation of them, certainly that is more Applicable to this, than to any other that can be imagined: For, though I have in stating it considered some of the most important Difficulties, which are seen and confessed by the School-men themselves, who have poised all these with much exactness and subtilty, yet I have passed over a great many more, with which those that deal in School-divinity, will find enough to exercise both their Thoughts and their Patience. They run out in many Subtilties, concerning the Accidents both primary and secondary: Concerning the Ubication, the Production and Reproduction of Bodies; concerning the Penetrability of Matter, and the Organization of a Penetrable Body; concerning the Way of the Destruction of the Species; concerning the Words of Consecration; concerning the Water that is mixed with the Wine, whether it is first changed by natural Causes into Wine; and since nothing but Wine is transubstantiated, what becomes of such Particles of Water that are not turned into Wine? What is the Grace produced by the Sacrament? what is the Effect of the Presence of Christ so long as he is in the Body of the Communicant; what is got by his Presence, and what is lost by his Absence: In a word, let a Man read the shortest Body of School-divinity that he can find, and he will see in it a vast Number of other difficulties in this Matter, of which their own Authors are aware, which I have quite past over. For, when this Doctrine fell into the Hands of nice and exact Men, they were soon sensible of all the Consequences that must needs follow upon it, and have pursued all these with a closeness far beyond any thing that is to be found among the Writers of our side.

But that they might have a Salvo for every difficulty, they framed a new Model of Philosophy; new Theories were invented of Substances and Accidents, of Matter and of Spirits, of Extension, Ubication and Impenetrability; and by the new Definitions and Maxims to which they accustomed Men in the Study of Philosophy, they prepared them to swallow down all this more easily, when they should come to the Study of Divinity.

The Infallibility of the Church that had expresly defined it, was to bear a great part of the Burden: If the Church was Infallible, and if they were that Church, then it could be no longer doubted of. In dark Ages, Miracles and Visions came in abundantly to support it: In Ages of more Light the infinite Power of God, the Words of the Institution, it being the Testament of our Saviour then dying, and soon after confirmed with his Blood, were things of great Pomp; and such as were apt to strike Men that could not distinguish between the shews and the strength of Arguments. But when all our Senses, all our Ideas of things rise up so strongly against every part of this Chain of Wonders, we ought at least to expect Proofs suitable to the difficulty of believing such a flat Contradiction to our Reasons, as well as to our Senses.

We have no other Notion of Accidents, but that they are the different Shapes or Modes of Matter; and that they have no Being distinct from the Body, in which they appear: We have no other Notion of a Body, but that it is an extended Substance, made up of Impenetrable Parts, one without another; every one of which fills its proper space: We have no other Notion of a Body’s being in a Place, but that it fills it, and is so in it, as that it can be no where else at the same time: And though we can very easily apprehend that an Insinite Power can both create and annihilate Beings at pleasure; yet we cannot apprehend that God does change the Essences of Things, and so make them to be contrary to that Nature and sort of Being of which he has made them.

Another Argument against Transubstantiation is this; God has made us capable to know and serve him: And in order to that he has put some Senses in us, which are the conveyances of many subtile Motions to our Brains, that give us Apprehensions of the Objects, which by those Motions are represented to us.

When those Motions are lively, and the Object is in a due distance; when we feel that neither our Organs, nor our Faculties are under any disorder, and when the Impression is clear and strong, we are determined by it: We cannot help being so. When we see the Sun risen and all is bright about us, it is not possible for us to think that it is dark Night: No authority can impose it on us; we are not so far the Masters of our own Thoughts, as to force our selves to think it, though we would; for God has made us of such a Nature that we are determined by such an Evidence, and cannot contradict it. When an Object is at too great a distance, we may mistake; a weakness or an ill disposition in our sight may misrepresent it; and a false Medium, Water, a Cloud, or a Glass, may give it a tincture or cast, so that we may see cause to correct our first Apprehensions, in some Sensations; but when we have duly examined every thing, when we have corrected one Sense by another, we grow at last to be so sure, by the Constitution of that Nature that God has given us, that we cannot doubt, much less believe in contradiction to the express Evidence of our Senses.

It is by this Evidence only, that God convinces the World of the Authority of those whom he sends to speak in his Name; He gives them a Power to work Miracles, which is an Appeal to the Senses of Mankind; and it is the highest Appeal that can be made; for those who stood out against the Conviction of Christ’s Miracles, had no Cloak for their Sins. It is the utmost Conviction that God offers, or that Man can pretend to: From all which we must infer this, That either our Senses in their clearest Apprehensions, or rather Representations of Things, must be Infallible, or we must throw up all Faith and Certainty; since it is not possible for us to receive the Evidence that is given us of any thing but by our Senses; and since we do naturally acquiesce in that Evidence, we must acknowledge that God has so made us, that this is his voice in us; because it is the voice of those Faculties that he has put in us; and is the only way by which we can find out Truth, and be led by it: And if our Faculties fail us in any one thing, so that God should reveal to us any thing, that did plainly contradict our Faculties, he should thereby give us a right to disbelieve them for ever.

If they can mistake when they bring any Object to us with the fullest Evidence that they can give, we can never depend upon them, nor be certain of any thing, because they shew it. Nay, we are not, and cannot be bound to believe that, nor any other Revelation that God may make to convince us. We can only receive a Revelation by hearing, or reading, by our Ears or our Eyes. So if any part of this Revelation destroys the certainty of the Evidence, that our Senses, our Eyes, or our Ears, give us, it destroys it self; for we cannot be bound to believe it upon the Evidence of our Senses, if this is a part of it that our Senses are not to be trusted. Nor will this matter be healed, by saying, that certainly we must believe God more than our Senses: And therefore if he has revealed any thing to us, that is contrary to their Evidence, we must as to that particular believe God, before our Senses: But that as to all other things where we have not an express Revelation to the contrary, we must still believe our Senses.

There is a difference to be made between that feeble Evidence that our Senses give us of remote Objects, or those loose Inferences that we may make from a slight view of Things; and the full Evidence that Sense gives us; as when we see and smell to, we handle and taste the same Object: This is the voice of God to us; he has made us so that we are determined by it: And as we should not believe a Prophet that wrought ever so many Miracles, if he should contradict any part of that which God had already revealed, so we cannot be bound to believe a Revelation, contrary to our Sense; because that were to believe God in contradiction to Himself; which is impossible to be true. For we should believe that Revelation certainly upon an Evidence, which it self tells us is not certain; and this is a Contradiction. We believe our Senses upon this foundation, because we reckon there is an Intrinsick certainty in their Evidence; we do not believe them as we believe another Man upon a Moral presumption of his Truth and Sincerity; but we believe them, because such is the nature of the Union of our Souls and Bodies, which is the work of God, that upon the full Impressions that are made upon the Senses, the Soul does necessarily produce, or rather feel those Thoughts and Sensations arise with a full Evidence that correspond to the motions of sensible Objects, upon the Organs of Sense. The Soul has a sagacity to examine these Sensations, to correct one Sense by another; but when she has used all the means she can, and the Evidence is still clear, she is perswaded and cannot help being so; she naturally takes all this to be true, because of the necessary connexion that she feels between such Sensations, and her assent to them. Now if she should find that she could be mistaken in this, even tho’ she should know this, by a Divine Revelation, all the Intrinsick certainty of the Evidence of Sense, and that connexion between those Sensations and her assent to them, should be hereby dissolved.

To all this another Objection may be made from the Mysteries of the Christian Religion; which contradict our Reasons, and yet we are bound to believe them; altho’ Reason is a faculty much superior to Sense. But all this is a mistake; we cannot be bound to believe any thing that contradicts our Reasons; for the Evidence of Reason, as well as that of Sense, is the voice of God to us. But as great difference is to be made, between a feeble Evidence that Sense gives us of an Object that is at a distance from us, or that appears to us through a false Medium; such as a Concave or a Convex-Glass; and the full Evidence of an Object that is before us, and that is clearly apprehended by us: So there is a great difference to be made, between our Reasonings upon Difficulties that we can neither understand nor resolve, and our Reasonings upon clear Principles. The one may be false, and the other must be true: We are sure that a Thing cannot be one and three in the same respect; our Reason assures us of this, and we do and must believe it; but we know that in different respects the same thing may be one and three. And since we cannot know all the possibilities of those different respects, we must believe upon the Authority of God revealing it, that the same thing is both one and three; tho’ if a Revelation should affirm that the same thing were one and three in the same respect, we should not, and indeed could not believe it.

This Argument deserves to be fully opened; for we are sure either it is true, or we cannot be sure that any thing else whatsoever, is true. In confirmation of this, we ought also to consider the nature and ends of Miracles. They put Nature out of its channel, and reverse its fixed Laws and Motions; and the end of God’s giving Men a power to work them, is that by them the World may be convinced, that such Persons are Commissionated by him, to deliver his Pleasure to them in some Particulars. And as it could not become the Infinite Wisdom of the Great Creator, to change the Order of Nature (which is his own Workmanship) upon slight Grounds; so we cannot suppose that he should work a Chain of Extraordinary Miracles to no purpose. It is not to give credit to a Revelation that he is making; for the Senses do not perceive it; on the contrary they do reject and contradict it; and the Revelation instead of getting credit from it, is loaded by it, as introducing that which destroys all credit and certainty.

In other Miracles our Senses are appealed to, but here they must be appealed from; nor is there any Spiritual end served in working this Miracle; for it is acknowledged that the effects of this Sacrament are given upon our due coming to it, independent upon the Corporal Presence: So that the Grace of the Sacrament does not always accompany it, since unworthy Receivers, tho’ according to the Romish Doctrine, they receive the true Body of Christ, yet they do not receive Grace with it: And the Grace that is given in it to the worthy Receivers, stays with them after that by the destruction of the Species of the Bread and Wine, the Body of Christ is withdrawn. So that it is acknowledged that the Spiritual effect of the Sacrament, does not depend upon the Corporal Presence.

Here then it is supposed, that God is every day working a great many Miracles, in a vast number of different Places; and that of so extraordinary a nature, that it must be confessed, they are far beyond all the other Wonders, even of Omnipotence; and yet all this is to no end, that we can apprehend; neither to any sensible and visible end, nor to any Internal and Spiritual one. This must needs seem an amazing thing, that God should work such a Miracle on our behalf, and yet should not acquaint us with any end for which he should work it.

To conclude this whole Argument, We have one great advantage in this matter, that our Doctrine concerning the Sacrament, of a Mystical Presence of Christ in the Symbols, and of the effects of it on the worthy and unworthy Receivers, is all acknowledged by the Church of Rome; but they have added to this the Wonder of the Corporal Presence: So that we need bring no Proofs to them at least, for that which we teach concerning it; since it is all confessed by them. But as to that which they have added, it is not necessary for us to give Proofs against it; it is enough for us, if we shew that all the Proofs that they bring for it are weak and unconcluding. They must be very demonstrative if it is expected, that upon the authority and evidence of them, we should be bound to believe a thing which they themselves confess to be contrary both to our Sense and Reasons. We cannot by the Laws of Reasoning be bound to give Arguments against it; it is enough if we can shew, that neither the words of the Institution, nor the Discourse in the sixth of St. John, do necessarily infer it; and if we shew that those Passages can well bear another sense, which is agreeable both to the words themselves, and to the style of the Scriptures, and more particularly to the Phraseology to which the Jews were accustomed, upon the occasion on which this was Instituted, and if the words can well bear the Sense that we give them, then the other advantages that are in it, of its being simple and natural, of its being suitable to the design of a Sacrament, and of its having no hard consequences of any sort depending upon it, then I say by all the Rules of expounding Scripture, we do justly infer that our Sense of those words ought to be preferred.

This is according to a Rule that St. Augustin gives to judge what Expressions in Scripture are Figurative and what not;²⁴ If any place seems to command a Crime or horrid Action, it is Figurative: And for an Instance of this he cites those Words, Except ye eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of man, you have no life in you: Which seems to command a Crime and an horrid Action; and therefore it is a Figure commanding us to communicate in the Passion of our Lord, and to lay up in our Memory with delight and profit, that his Flesh was crucified and wounded for us. And this was given for a Rule by the great Doctor of the Latin Church, so the same Maxim had been delivered almost two Ages before him,²⁵ by the great Doctor of the Greek Church Origen, who says, that the understanding our Saviour’s words of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood, according to the Letter, is a Letter that kills. These Passages I cite by an Anticipation, before I enter upon the enquiry into the Sense of the ancient Church, concerning this Matter; because they belong to the words of the Institution, at least to the Discourse in St. John; Now if the Sense that we give to these Words is made good, we need be at no more pains to prove that they are capable of no other Sense: Since this must prove that to be the only true Sense of them.

So that for all the Arguments that have been brought by us against this Doctrine, arising out of the Fruitfulness of the Matter, we were not bound to use them: For, our Doctrine being confessed by them it wants no Proof, and we cannot be bound to prove a Negative. Therefore though the Copiousness of this Matter has afforded us many Arguments for the Negative, yet that was not necessary: For, as a Negative always proves it self; so that holds more especially here, where that which is denied is accompanied with so many and so strange Absurdities, as do follow from this Doctrine.

The last Topick in this Matter, is the Sense that the ancient Church had of it: For, as we certainly have both the Scriptures, and the Evidence of our Senses and Reason of our side, so that will be much fortified, if it appears that no such Doctrine was received in the First and best Ages: And that it came in not all at once, but by degrees. I shall first urge this Matter by some general Presumptions: And then I shall go to plain Proofs. But though the Presumptions shall be put only as Presumptions, yet if they appear to be violent, so that a Man cannot hold giving his Assent to the Conclusion that follows from them, then though they are put in the Form of presumptive Arguments, yet that will not hinder them from being considered as concluding ones.

By the stating this Doctrine, it has appeared how many Difficulties there are involved in it: These are Difficulties that are obvious and soon seen: They are not found out by deep enquiry and much speculation: They are soon felt, and are very hardly avoided: And ever since the Time that this Doctrine has been received by the Roman Church, these have been much insisted on: Explanations have been offered to them all; and the whole Principles of natural Philosophy have been cast into a new Mould, that they might ply to this Doctrine: At least those who have studied their Philosophy in that System, have had such Notions put in them, while their Minds were yet tender and capable of any Impressions, that they have been thereby prepared to this Doctrine before they came to it, by a Train of Philosophical Terms and Distinctions, so that they were not much alarmed at it, when it came to be set before them.

They are accustomed to think that Ubication, or the being in a Place, is but an Accident to a Substance: So that the same Bodies being in more Places, is only its having a few more of those Accidents produced in it by God: They are accustomed to think that Accidents are Beings different from Matter: like a sort of cloathing to it, which do indeed require the having of a Substance for their Subject: But yet since they are believed to have a being of their own, God may make them subsist: As the Skin of a Man may stand out in its proper Shape and Colour, though there were nothing but Air or Vacuity within it.

They are accustomed to think that as an Accident may be without its proper Substance, so a Substance may be without its proper Accidents: And they do reckon Extension and Impenetrability, that is, a Bodies so filling a Space, that no other Body can be in the same Space with it, among its Accidents: So that a Body composed of Organs, and of large Dimensions, may be not only all crouded within one Wafer, but an entire distinct Body may be in every separable Part of this Wafer: At least in every piece that carries in it the Appearances of Bread.

These, besides many other lesser Subtilties, are the evident Results of this Doctrine: And it was a natural Effect of its being received, that their Philosophy should be so transformed as to agree to it, and to prepare Men for it.

Now to apply this to the Matter we are now upon, We find none of these Subtilties among the Ancients. They seem to apprehend none of those Difficulties, nor do they take any pains to solve or clear them. They had a Philosophical Genius, and shewed it in all other things: They disputed very nicely concerning the Attributes of God, concerning his Essence, and the Persons of the Trinity: They saw the Difficulties concerning the Incarnation of the Eternal Word, and Christ’s being both God and Man: They treat of Original Sin, of the Power of Grace, and of the Decrees of God.

They explained the Resurrection of our Bodies, and the different States of the Blessed and the Damned.

They saw the Difficulties in all these Heads, and were very Copious in their Explanations of them: And they may be rather thought by some too full, than too sparing in the canvassing of Difficulties: But all those were more speculative Matters, in which the Difficulty was not so soon seen as on this Subject: Yet they found these out, and pursued them with that Subtilty that shewed they were not at all displeased, when occasions were offered them to shew their Skill in answering Difficulties: Which, to name no more, appears very evidently to be St. Augustin’s Character. Yet neither he, nor any of the other Fathers, seem to have been Sensible of the Difficulties in this Matter.

They neither state them nor answer them, nor do they use those reserves when they speak of Philosophical Matters, that Men must have used who were possessed of this Doctrine: For, a Man cannot hold it without bringing himself to think and speak otherways upon all natural Things than the rest of Mankind do.

They are so far from this, that, on the contrary they deliver themselves in a way that shews they had no such Apprehensions of Things.

They thought that all Creatures were limited to one Place: And from thence they argued against the Heathens, who believed that their Deities were in every one of those Statues which they consecrated to them.

From this Head they proved the Divinity of the Holy Ghost; Because he wrought in many different Places at once: Which he could not do if he were only a Creature.

They affirm that Christ can be no more on Earth, since he is now in Heaven, and that he can be but in one Place.

They say, that which hath no Bounds nor Figure, and that can neither be touched nor seen, cannot be a Body: That Bodies are extended in some Place, and cannot exist after the Manner of Spirits.

They argue against the Eternity of Matter, from this, that nothing could be produced, that had a Being before it was produced: And on all Occasions they appeal to the Testimony of our Senses as Infallible.

They say, that to believe otherwise tended to reverse the whole State of Life, and Order of Nature; and to reproach the Providence of God, since it must be said, that he has given the Knowledge of all his Works to Liars and Deceivers, if our Senses may be false: That we must doubt of our Faith, if the Testimony of hearing, seeing and feeling, could deceive us.

And in their Contests with the Marcionites and others, concerning the Truth of Christ’s Body, they appeal always to the Testimony of the Senses as Infallible: And even treating of the Sacrament, they say, without Limitation or Exception, that it was Bread, as their Eyes witnessed, and true Wine that Christ did Consecrate to be the Memorial of his Body and Blood; and they tell us in this very Particular, that we ought not to doubt of the Testimony of our Senses.

Another presumptive Proof, that the Ancients knew nothing of this Doctrine, is, that the Heathens and the Jews who charged them, and their Doctrine, with every thing that they could invent, to make both it and them odious and ridiculous, could never have passed over this in which both Sense and Reason seemed to be so evidently on their side.

They reproach the Christians for believing a God that was Born, a God of Flesh that was crucified and buried: They laughed at their belief of a Judgment to come, of endless Flames, of a heavenly Paradise, and of the Resurrection of the Body. Those who writ the first Apologies for the Christian Religion, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Origen, Arnobius and Minutius Felix, have given us a large Account of the Blasphemies both of Jews and Gentiles, against the Doctrines of Christianity.

Cyril of Alexandria has given us Julian’s Objections in his own Words; who having been not only initiated into the Christian Religion, but having read the Scriptures in the Churches, and being a Philosophical and Inquisitive Man, must have been well instructed concerning the Doctrine and the Sacraments of this Religion: And his Relation to the Emperor Constantine, must have made the Christians concerned to take more than ordinary Pains on him. When he made Apostacy from the Faith, he reproached the Christians with the Doctrine of Baptism, and laughed at them for thinking that there was an Ablution and Sanctification in it, conceiving it a thing Impossible that Water should wash or cleanse a Soul: Yet neither he nor Porphiry, nor Celsus before them, did charge this Religion with the Absurdities of Transubstantiation.

It is reasonable to believe, that if the Christians of that time had any such Doctrine among them, it must have been known. Every Christian must have known in what Sense those Words, This is is my body and This is my blood were understood among them. All the Apostates from Christianity must have known it, and must have published it to excuse or hide the shame of their Apostacy: Since Apostates are apt to spread Lies of them whom they forsake, but not to conceal such Truths as are to their Prejudice. Julian must have known it, and if he had known it, his Judgment was too True, and his Malice to the Christian Religion too Quick, to overlook or neglect the Advantages which this part of their Doctrine gave him. Nor can this be carried off by saying that the eating of human Flesh and the Thyestean Suppers, which were objected to the Christians, relate to this: When the Fathers answer that, they tell the Heathens that it was a downright Calumny and Lie: And do not offer any Explanations or Distinctions taken from their Doctrine of the Sacrament, to clear them from the mistake and malice of this Calumny. The Truth is, the execrable Practices of the Gnosticks, who were called Christians, gave the Rise to those as well as to many other Calumnies: But they were not at all founded on the Doctrine of the Eucharist, which is never once mentioned as the Occasion of this Accusation.

Another Presumption from which we conclude that the Ancients knew nothing of this Doctrine, is that we find Heresies and Disputes arising concerning all the other Points of Religion: There were very few of the Doctrines of the Christian Religion, and not any of the Mysteries of the Faith, that did not fall under great Objections: But there was not any one Heresy raised upon this Head: Men were never so meek and tame as easily to believe things, when there appeared strong Evidence, or at least great Presumptions against them. In these last Eight or Nine Centuries, since this Doctrine was received, there has been a perpetual Opposition made to it, even in dark and unlearned Ages: In which, implicite Faith and blind Obedience have carried a great sway. And though the Secular Arm has been employed with great and unrelenting Severities, to extirpate all that have opposed it: Yet all the while many have stood out against it, and have suffered much and long for their rejecting it. Now it is not to be imagined, that such an opposition should have been made to this Doctrine, during the nine hundred Years last past, and that for the former eight hundred Years, there should have been no Disputes at all concerning it: And that while all other things were so much questioned, that several Fathers writ, and Councils were called to settle the Belief of them, yet that for about eight hundred Years, this was the single Point that went down so easily that no Treatise was all that while writ to prove it, nor Council held to establish it.

Certainly the Reason of this will appear to be much rather, that since there have been Contests upon this Point these last Nine Ages, and that there were none the first Eight, this Doctrine was not known during those First Ages; and that the great Silence about it for so long a time, is a very strong Presumption that in all that time, this Doctrine was not thought of.

The last of those Considerations that I shall offer, which are of the nature of presumptive Proofs, is, that there are a great many Rites and other practices, that have arisen out of this Doctrine as its natural Consequences, which were not thought of for a great many Ages; but that have gone on by a perpetual progress, and have increased very fruitfully, ever since this Doctrine was received. Such are the Elevation, Adoration, and Processions, together with the Doctrine of Concomitance, and a vast number of Rites and Rubricks; the first occasions and beginnings of which are well known. These did all arise from this Doctrine; it being natural, especially in the Ages of Ignorance and Superstition, for Men upon the supposition of Christ’s being Corporally present, to run out into all possible Inventions of Pomp and Magnificence, about this Sacrament; and it is very reasonable to think, that since these things are of so late and so certain a date, that the Doctrine upon which they are founded is not much ancienter.

The great Simplicity of the Primitive Forms, not only as they are reported by Justin Martyr and Tertullian in the Ages of the Poverty and Persecutions of the Church, but as they are represented to us in the Fourth and Fifth Century by Cyril of Jerusalem, the Constitutions, and the pretended Areopagite, have nothing of that Air that appears in the latter Ages. The Sacrament was then given in both kinds, it was put in the hands of the Faithful; they reserved some portions of it: It was given to Children for many Ages: The Laity, and even Boys were imployed to carry it to dying Penitents; what remained of it was burnt in some places, and consumed by the Clergy, and by Children in other places; the making Cataplasms of it, the mixing the Wine with Ink, to sign the Condemnation of Hereticks, are very clear Presumptions that this Doctrine was not then known.

But above all, their not adoring the Sacrament, which is not done to this day in the Greek Church, and of which there is no mention made, by all those who writ of the Offices of the Church in the Eighth and Ninth Centuries so copiously; this I say of their not adoring it, is perhaps more than a presumption, that this Doctrine was not then thought on. But since it was established, all the Old Forms and Rituals have been altered, and the Adoring the Sacrament is now become the main act of Devotion, and of Religious Worship among them. One ancient Form is indeed still continued, which is of the strongest kind of Presumptions that this Doctrine came in much later than some other Superstitions which we condemn in that Church. In the Masses that are appointed on Saints-days, there are some Collects in which it is said that the Sacrifice is offered up in honour to the Saint, and it is prayed that it may become the more valuable and acceptable, by the Merits and Intercessions of the Saint. Now when a practice will well agree with one Opinion, but not at all with another, we have all possible reason to presume at least, that at first it came in under that Opinion with which it will agree, and not under another which cannot consist with it. Our Opinion is that the Sacrament is a federal act of our Christianity, in which we offer up our highest Devotions to God, through Christ, and receive the largest Returns from him: It is indeed a Superstitious conceit to celebrate this to the honour of a Saint, but howsoever upon the supposition of Saints hearing our Prayers, and Interceding for us, there is still good sense in this; but if it is believed that Christ is Corporally present, and that he is offered up in it; it is against all Sense, and it approaches to Blasphemy, to do this to the Honour of a Saint, and much more to desire that this which is of infinite value, and is the foundation of all God’s Blessings to us, should receive any addition or increase in its value or acceptation from the Merits or Intercession of Saints. So this, tho’ a late practice, yet does fully evince, that the Doctrine of the Corporal Presence was not yet thought on, when it was first brought into the Office.

So far I have gone upon the Presumptions that may be offered to prove that this Doctrine was not known to the Ancients. They are not only just and lawful Presumptions, but they are so strong and violent, that when they are well considered, they force an assent to that which we infer from them. I go next to the more plain and direct Proofs that we find of the Opinion of the Ancients in this Matter.

They call the Elements Bread and Wine after the Consecration. Justin Martyr calls them Bread and Wine,²⁶ and a nourishment which nourished: He indeed says it is not common Bread and Wine; which shews that he thought it was still so in Substance: And he illustrates the Sanctification of the Elements by the Incarnation of Christ, in which the human Nature did not lose or change its Substance by its Union with the Divine: So the Bread and the Wine do not according to that Explanation, lose their proper Substance, when they become the Flesh and Blood of Christ.

Irenoeus calls it that Bread over which thanks are given, and says, it is no more common Bread, but the Eucharist consisting of two things, an earthly and a heavenly.²⁷

Tertullian arguing against the Marcionites, who held two Gods, and that the Creator of this Earth was the bad God; but that Christ was contrary to him; urges against them this, that Christ made use of the Creatures: And says, he did not reject Bread by which he represents his own Body: And in another Place he says, Christ calls Bread his Body, That from thence you may understand, that he gave the figure of his Body to the Bread.

Origen says, we eat of the Loaves that are set before us:²⁸ Which by prayer are become a certain holy body, that sanctifies those who use them with a sound purpose.

St. Cyprian says, Christ calls the Bread that was compounded of many grains,²⁹ his Body: And the Wine that is pressed out of many grapes his Blood, to shew the Vnion of his People. And in another Place writing against those who used only Water, but no Wine in the Eucharist; He says, we cannot see the Blood by which we are Redeemed, when Wine is not in the Chalice; by which the Blood of Christ is shewed.

Epiphanius being to Prove that Man may be said to be made after the Image of God, though he is not like him, urges this,³⁰ That the Bread is not like Christ, neither in his invisible Deity, nor in his Incarnate likeness, for it is round and without feeling as to its vertue.

Gregory Nyssen says, the Bread in the beginning is common;³¹ but after the Mystery has consecrated it, it is said to be, and is the Body of Christ: To this he compares the Sanctification of the mystical Oil, of the Water in Baptism, and the Stones of an Altar or Church dedicated to God.

St. Ambrose calls it still Bread;³² and says this Bread is made of the food of the Saints.

St. Chrysostom on these words the Bread that we break, says, What is the bread? The Body of Christ: What are they made to be who take it? The Body of Christ. Which shews that he considered the Bread as being so the Body of Christ, as the worthy Receivers became his Body; which is done not by a change of Substance, but by a Sanctification of their Natures.

St. Jerom says, Christ took Bread,³³ that as Melchisedeck had in the figure offered Bread and Wine, he might also represent the truth (that is in Opposition to the Figure) of his Body and Blood.

St. Augustin does very largely compare the Sacraments being called the Body and Blood of Christ,³⁴ with those other Places in which the Church is called his Body, and all Christians are his Members: Which shews that he thought the One was to be understood Mystically as well as the other. He calls the Eucharist frequently our daily Bread, and the Sacrament of Bread and Wine. All these call the Eucharist Bread and Wine in express Words: But when they call it Christ’s Body and Blood, they call it so after a sort, or that it is said to be, or with some other mollifying Expression.

St. Augustin says this plainly,³⁵ after some sort the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is his Body, and the Sacrament of his Blood is the Blood of Christ; he carried himself in his own hands in some sort, when he said, This is my Body.

St. Chrysostom says, the Bread is thought worthy to be called the Body of our Lord: And in another Place reckoning up the improper Senses of the word Flesh; he says the Scriptures use to call the Mysteries (that is, the Sacrament) by the Name of Flesh, and sometimes the whole Church is said to be the Body of Christ.

So Tertullian says, Christ calls the Bread his Body, and names the Bread by his Body.

³⁶The Fathers do not only call the consecrated Elements Bread and Wine: They do also affirm that they retain their proper Nature and Substance, and are the same thing as to their Nature, that they were before. And the Occasion upon which the Passages, that I go next to mention, are used by them, does prove this Matter beyond Contradiction.

Apollinaris did broach that Heresy which was afterwards put in full Form by Eutyches; and that had so great a Party to support it, that as they had one General Council (a pretended one at least) to favour them, so they were condemned by another. Their Error was that the human Nature of Christ was swallowed up by the Divine, if not while he was here on Earth, yet at least after his Ascension to Heaven. This Error was confuted by several Writers who lived very wide one from another: And at a distance of above a hundred Years one from another. St. Chrysostom at Constantinople, Theodoret in Asia, Ephrem Patriarch of Antioch, and Gelasius Bishop of Rome. All those write to Prove that the human Nature did still remain in Christ, not changed nor swallowed up, but only sanctified by the Divine Nature that was united to it. They do all fall into one Argument, which very probably those who came after St. Chrysostom took from him:³⁷ So that though both Theodoret and Gelasius’s Words are much fuller, yet because the Argument is the same with that which St. Chrysostom had urged against Apollinaris, I shall first set down his Words: He brings an Illustration from the Doctrine of the Sacrament, to shew that the human Nature was not destroyed by its Union with the Divine, and has upon that these Words, As before the Bread is sanctified, we call it Bread; but when the Divine Grace has sanctified it by the means of the Priest, it is freed from the name of Bread, and is thought worthy of the name of the Lord’s Body, though the nature of Bread remains in it: And yet it is not said there are two Bodies but one Body of the Son: So the divine Nature being joined to the Body, Both these make one Son and one Person.

³⁸ Ephrem of Antioch says, The Body of Christ which is received by the faithful, does not depart from its sensible Substance: So Baptism, says he, does not lose its own sensible Substance, and does not lose that which it was before.

³⁹ Theodoret says, Christ does honour the Symbols with the name of his Body and Blood; not changing the nature, but adding grace to nature: In another Place pursuing the same Argument, he says, The mystical Symbols after the sanctification, do not depart from their own nature: For they continue in their former substance, figure and form, and are visible and palpable as they were before: But they are understood to be that which they are made.

Pope Gelasius says, The Sacraments of the Body and Blood of Christ are a divine thing;⁴⁰ for which reason we become by them partakers of the divine Nature; and yet the substance of Bread and Wine does not cease to exist: And the image and likeness of the Body and Blood of Christ are celebrated in holy Mysteries. Upon all these Places being compared with the Design with which they were written, which was to prove that Christ’s Human Nature did still subsist, unchanged and not swallowed up by its Union with the Divinity, some Reflections are very obvious; First, If the corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament had been then received in the Church, the natural and unavoidable Argument in this Matter, which must put an end to it, with all that believed such corporal Presence, was this: Christ has certainly a natural Body still, because the Bread and the Wine are turned to it; and they cannot be turned to that which is not. In their Writings they argued against the possibility of a substantial Change of a Human Nature into the Divine; but that could not have been urged by Men who believed a substantial Mutation to be made in the Sacrament: For then the Eutychians might have retorted the Argument with great Advantage upon them.

The Eutychians did make use of some Expressions, that were used by some in the Church, which seemed to Import that they did argue from the Sacrament, as Theodoret represents their Objections: But to that he answers as we have seen, denying that any such substantial Change was made. The Design of those Fathers was to prove that things might be united together, and continue so united without the change of their Substances, and that this was true in the two Natures in the Person of Christ: And to make this more Sensible they bring in the Matter of the Sacrament, as a thing known and confessed: For in their arguing upon it they do suppose it as a thing out of dispute.

Now according to the Roman Doctrine, this had been a very odd Sort of an Argument, to prove that Christ’s Human Nature was not swallowed up of the Divine, because the Mysteries or Elements in the Sacrament, are changed into the Substance of Christ’s Body, only they retain the outward appearances of Bread and Wine.

To this an Eutychian might readily have answered, that then the Human Nature might be believed to be destroyed: And though Christ had appeared in that likeness, he retained only the Accidents of Human Nature; but that the Human Nature it self was destroyed, as the Bread and the Wine were destroyed in the Eucharist.

This had been a very absurd way of arguing in the Fathers, and had indeed delivered up the Cause to the Eutychians: Whereas those Fathers make it an Argument against them, to prove that notwithstanding an Uninion of two Beings, and such an Union as did communicate a Sanctification from the one to the other, yet the two Natures might remain still distinguish’d; and that it was so in the Eucharist: Therefore it might be so in the Person of Christ. This seems to be so evident an Indication of the Doctrine of the whole Church in the Fourth and Fifth Century, when so many of the most eminent Writers of those Ages, do urge it so home as an Argument in so great a Point, that we can scarce think it possible for any Man to consider it fully without being determined by it. And so far we have considered the Authorities from the Fathers, to shew that they believed that the Substance of Bread and Wine did still remain in the Sacrament.

Another Head of Proof is, that they affirm, that our Bodies are nourished by the Sacrament; which shews very plainly that they had no Notion of a Change of Substance made in it.

Justin Martyr calls the Eucharist,⁴¹ That food by which our flesh and blood through its transmutation into them are nourished.

Irenaeus makes this an Argument for the Resurrection of our Bodies,⁴² that they are fed by the Body and Blood of Christ: When the Cup and the Bread, receives the Word of God, it becomes the Eucharist of the Body and Blood of Christ, by which the substance of our flesh is encreased and subsists: And he adds, that the flesh is nourished by the Body and Blood of Christ, and is made his Member.

Tertullian says, The flesh is fed with the Body and Blood of Christ.

Origen explains this very largely on those words of Christ,⁴³ It is not that which enters within a man that defiles the man; He says, if every thing that goes into the Belly, is cast into the Draught, then that food which is sanctified by the Word of God, and by Prayer, goes also into the belly, as to that which is material in it, and goes from thence into the draught. And a little after he adds, It is not the matter of the Bread, but the Word that is pronounced over it, which profits him that eats it, in such a way as is not unworthy of the Lord.

The Bishops of Spain in a Councel that sat at Toledo in the Seventh Century,⁴⁴ condemned those that began to Consecrate Round Wafers, and did not offer one intire Loaf in the Eucharist; and appointed that for so much of the Bread as remained after the Communion, that either it should be put in some Bag, or if it was needful to eat it up, that it might not oppress the belly of him that took it with an over-charging burden, and that it might not go into the digestion. They fancying that a lesser quantity made no digestion, and produced no Excrement.

In the Ninth Century both Rabanus Maurus, and Heribald believed, that the Sacrament was so digested that some part of it turned to Excrement; which was also held by divers Writers of the Greek Church, whom their Adversaries called by way of reproach Stercoranists. Others indeed of the Ancients, did think that no part of the Sacrament became Excrement, but that it was spread through the whole Substance of the Communicant,⁴⁵ for the good of Body and Soul. Both Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Chrysostom, and John Damascene, fell into this conceit; but still they thought that it was changed into the Substance of our Bodies, and so nourished them without any Excrement coming from any part of it.

The Fathers do call the Consecrated Elements the Figures, the Signs, the Symbols, the Types and Antitypes, the Commemoration, the Representation, the Mysteries and the Sacraments of the Body and Blood; which does evidently demonstrate that they could not think, that they were the very Substance of his Body and Blood.⁴⁶ Tertullian when he is proving that Christ had a true Body, and was not a Phantasm, argues thus, He made Bread to be his Body; saying, This is my Body; that is, the figure of my Body: From which he argues, that since his Body had that for its figure; it was a true Body; for an empty thing, such as a Phantasm is, cannot have a figure. It is from hence clear, that it was not then believed that Christ’s Body was literally in the Sacrament; for otherwise the Argument would have been much clearer and shorter: Christ has a true Body, because we believe that the Sacrament is truly his Body, than to go and prove it so far about, as to say a Phantasm has no figure: But the Sacrament is the figure of Christ’s Body, therefore it is no Phantasm.

⁴⁷St. Austin says, He commended and gave to his Disciples the Figure of his Body and Blood. And when the Manicheans objected to him, that Blood is called in the Old Testament the Life or Soul, contrary to what is said in the New. He answers, that Blood was not the Soul or Life, but only the Sign of it; and that the Sign sometimes bears the name of that of which it is the Sign:⁴⁸ So says he, Christ did not doubt to say, This is my Body, when he was giving the Sign of his Body. Now that had been a very bad Argument, if the Bread was truly the Body of Christ; it had proved that the Sign must be one with the thing signified.

The whole Ancient Liturgies, and all the Greek Fathers do so frequently use the words Type, Antitype, Sign and Mystery, that this is not so much as denied; it is their constant Style. Now it is apparent that a thing cannot be the Type and Symbol of it self. And tho’ they had more frequent occasions to speak of the Eucharist, than either of Baptism or the Chrism; yet as they called the Water and the Oyl, Types and Mysteries, so they bestowed the same descriptions on the Elements in the Eucharist; and as they have many strong Expressions concerning the Water and the Oyl that cannot be literally understood, so upon the same Grounds it will appear reasonable, to give the same Exposition to some high Expressions, that they fell into concerning this Sacrament. Facundus has some very full Discourses to this purpose: He is proving that Christ may be called the Adopted Son of God, as well as he is truly his Son; and that because he was Baptized. The Sacrament of Adoption, that is, Baptism,⁴⁹ may be called Baptism; as the Sacrament of his Body and Blood, which is in the Consecrated Bread and Cup, is called his Body and Blood: Not that the Bread is properly his Body, or the Cup properly his Blood; but because they contain in them the Mystery of his Body and Blood. St. Austin says, That Sacraments must have some resemblance of those things of which they are the Sacraments: So the Sacrament of the Body of Christ is after some manner his Body: and the Sacrament of his Blood is after some manner his Blood. And speaking of the Eucharist as a Sacrifice of Praise, he says,⁵⁰ The Flesh and Blood of this Sacrifice was promised before the coming of Christ, by the Sacrifices that were the Types of it. In the Passion the Sacrifice was truly offered; and after his Ascension it is Celebrated by the Sacrament of the Remembrance of it. And when he speaks of the murmuring of the Jews, upon our Saviour’s speaking of giving his Flesh to them, to eat it; he adds, They foolishly and carnally thought,⁵¹ that he was to cut off some parcels of his Body, to be given to them; but he shews that there was a Sacrament hid there; and he thus Paraphrases that Passage, The words that I have spoken to you, they are spirit and life: Vnderstand spiritually that which I have said, for it is not this Body which you see that you are to eat, or to drink this Blood which they shall shed, who crucifie me. But I have recommended a Sacrament to you, which being spiritually understood, shall quicken you: And tho’ it be necessary that it be celebrated visibly, yet it must be understood invisibly.

Primasius compares the Sacrament to a Pledge,⁵² which a dying Man leaves to any one whom he loved. But that which is more Important than the Quotation of any of the words of the Fathers, is that the Author of the Books of the Sacraments, which pass under the Name of St. Ambrose;⁵³ tho’ it is generally agreed that those Books were writ some Ages after his Death, gives us the Prayer of Consecration, as it was used in his time: He calls it the Heavenly Words, and sets it down. The Offices of the Church are a clearer Evidence of the Doctrine of that Church, than all the Discourses that can be made by any Doctor in it; the one is the Language of the whole Body, whereas the other are only the private reasonings of particular Men: And of all the Parts of the Office, the Prayer of Consecration is that which does most certainly set out to us the sense of that Church that used it: But that which makes this Remark the more Important, is that the Prayer as set down by this pretended St. Ambrose, is very near the same with that which is now in the Canon of the Mass, only there is one very Important variation, which will best appear by setting both down.

That of St. Ambrose’s is, Fac nobis hanc oblationem, ascriptam, rationabilem, acceptabilem, quod est figura Corporis & Sanguinis Domini nostri Jesu Christi, qui pridie quam pateretur, &c. That in the Canon of the Mass is, Quam oblationem tu Deus in omnibus quae sumus benedictam, ascriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque facere digneris: ut nobis Corpus & Sanguis fiat dilectissimi filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi.

We do plainly see so great a resemblance of the later to the former of these two Prayers, that we may well conclude, that the one was begun in the other; but at the same time we observe an Essential difference. In the former this Sacrifice is called the Figure of the Body and Blood of Christ. Whereas in the later it is Prayed that it may become to us the Body and Blood of Christ. As long as the former was the Prayer of Consecration, it is not pofsible for us to imagine, that the Doctrine of the Corporal Presence could be received; for that which was believed to be the true Body and Blood of Christ, could not be called, especially in such a part of the Office, the Figure of his Body and Blood; and therefore the change that was made in this Prayer, was an evident proof of a change in the Doctrine; and if we could tell in what Age that was done, we might then upon greater certainty fix the time, in which this change was made, or at least in which the inconsistency of that Prayer with this Doctrine was observed.

I have now set down a great variety of Proofs reduced under different Heads, from which it appears evidently that the Fathers did not believe this Doctrine, but that they did affirm the contrary very expresly. This Sacrament continued to be so long considered as the Figure or Image of Christ’s Body, that the Seventh General Council which met at Constantinople in the Year 754, and consisted of above Three hundred and thirty Bishops, when it condemned the Worship of Images, affirmed that this was the only Image that we might lawfully have of Christ; and that he had appointed us to offer this Image of his Body, to wit, the Substance of the Bread. That was indeed contradicted with much confidence by the Second Council of Nice, in which, in opposition to what appears to this day in all the Greek Liturgies, and the Greek Fathers, they do positively deny that the Sacrament was ever called the Image of Christ; and they affirm it to be the true Body of Christ.

In conclusion, I shall next shew how this Doctrine crept into the Church; for this seems plausible, that a Doctrine of this nature could never have got into the Church in any Age, if those of the Age that admitted it, had not known that it had been the Doctrine of the former Age, and so upwards to the Age of the Apostles. It is not to be denied, but that very early both Justin Martyr and Irenaeus thought, that there was such a Sanctification of the Elements, that there was a Divine Vertue in them: And in those very Passages which we have urg’d from the Arguings of the Fathers against the Eutychians, tho’ they do plainly prove that they believed, that the Substance of Bread and Wine did still remain; yet they do suppose an Union of the Elements to the Body of Christ, like that of the Human Nature’s being united to the Divine; here a Foundation was laid for all the Superstructure that was afterwards raised upon it. For tho’ the Liturgies and Publick Offices continued long in the first simplicity, yet the Fathers who did very much study Eloquence, chiefly the Greek Fathers, carried this matter very far in their Sermons and Homilies. They did only apprehend the Profanation of the Sacrament, from the unworthiness of those who came to it; and being much set on the begetting a due reverence for so holy an action, and a seriousness in the performance of it, they urg’d all the Topicks that sublime Figures, or warm Expressions could help them with; and with this exalted Eloquence of theirs, we must likewise observe the state that the World fell in, in the Fifth Century: Vast Swarms out of the North over-run the Roman Empire, and by a long continued Succession of new Invaders, all was sackt and ruined. In the West, the Goths were followed by the Vandals, the Alans, the Gepides, the Franks, the Sweves, the Huns, and the Lombards, some of these Nations; but in conclusion the Saracens and Turks in the East, made Havock of all that was polite or learned; by which we lost the chief Writings of the first and best Times; but instead of these, many spurious ones were afterwards produced, and they passed easily in dark and ignorant Ages. All fell under much oppression and misery; and Europe was so over-run with Barbarity and Ignorance, that it cannot be easily apprehended, but by such as have been at the pains to go through one of the ungratefullest pieces of Study that can be well imagined; and have read the Productions of those Ages. The understanding the Scriptures or Languages, or History were not so much as thought on. Some affected Homilies or Discantings on the Rituals of the Church, full of many very odd Speculations about them, are among the best of the Writings of those Times. They were easily imposed on by any new Forgery; witness the Reception and Authority that was given to the Decretal Epistles of the Popes of the first Three Centuries, which for many Ages maintained its credit, tho’ it was plainly a Forgery of the Eighth Century, and was contrived with so little Art, that there is not in them colour enough to excuse the ignorance of those that were deceived by it. As it is an easie thing to mislead ignorant multitudes, so there is somewhat in Incredible Opinions and Stories, that is suited to such a state of Mankind; and as Men are apt to fancy that they see Sprights, especially in the Night, so the more of darkness and unconceivableness that there is in an Opinion, it is the more properly calculated for such times. The Ages that succeeded were not only times of Ignorance, but they were also times of much Corruption. The Writers of the Fourth and Fifth Century give us dismal Representations of the Corruptions of their times; and the scandalous unconstancy of the Councils of those Ages, is too evident a proof of what we find said by the Good Men of those days: But things fell lower and lower in the succeeding Ages. It is an amazing thing that in the very Office of Consecrating Bishops, Examinations are ordered concerning those Crimes, the very mention of which give horrour; De Coitu cum Masculo & cum Quadrupedibus.

The Popes more particularly were such a Succession of Men, that as their own Historians have described them, nothing in any History can be produced that is like them. The Characters they give them are so monstrous, that nothing under the authority of unquestioned Writers, and the Evidence of the Facts themselves, could make them credible.

But that which makes the Introduction of this Doctrine appear the more probable, is that we plainly see the whole Body of the Clergy was every where so Influenced by the management of the Popes, that they generally entred into Combinations to subject the Temporalty to the Spiritualty, and therefore every Opinion that tended to render the Persons of the Clergy Sacred, and to raise their Character high, was sure to receive the best entertainment, and the greatest incouragement possible. Nothing could carry this so far as an Opinion that represented the Priest as having a Character by which with a few words, he could make a God. The Opinion of Transubstantiation was such an Engine, that it being once set on foot, could not but meet with a favourable reception from those who were then seeking all possible colours, to give credit to their authority, and to advance it. The numbers of the Clergy were then so great, and their contrivances were so well suited to the credulity and superstition of those times, that by Visions and wonderful Stories confidently vouched, they could easily infuse any thing into weak and giddy Multitudes. Besides that the Genius of those Times led them much to the love of Pomp and Shew; they had lost the true Power and Beauty of Religion, and were willing by outward Appearances to balance or compensate for their great Defects.

But besides all those general Considerations which such as are acquainted with the History of those Ages, know do belong to them in a much higher Degree than is here set forth: There are some Specialities that relate to this Doctrine in Particular, which will make the Introduction of it appear the more Practicable. This had never been condemned in any former Age; for as none condemn Errors by Anticipation or Prophesy, so the Promoters of it had this Advantage, that no formal Decision had been made against them. It did also in the outward sound agree with the Words of the Institution, and the Phrases generally used, of the Elements being changed into the Body and Blood of Christ: Outward sound and appearance was enough in Ignorant Ages, to hide the Change that was made. The step that is made from believing any thing in General, with an indistinct and confused Apprehension, to a determined way of explaining it, is not hard to be brought about.

The People in General believed that Christ was in the Sacrament, and that the Elements were his Body and Blood; without troubling themselves to Examine in what Manner all this was done: So it was no great step in a dark Age, to put a particular Explanation of this upon them: And this Change being brought in without any visible Alterations made in the Worship, it must needs have passed with the World more easily: For in all Times, visible Rites are more minded by the People, than speculative Points; which they consider very little. No Alterations were at first made in the Worship; the Adoration of the Host, and the Processions invented to Honour it came all afterwards.

⁵⁴ Honorius IV. who first appointed the Adoration, does not pretend to Found it on ancient Practice: Only he commands the Priests to tell the People to do it: And he at first enjoined only an Inclination of the Head to the Sacrament: But his Successor Gregory IX. did more resolutely Command it, and ordered a Bell to be rung at the Consecration and Elevation, to give notice of it, that so all those who heard it might kneel and join their Hands, and so Worship the Host.

The first Controversy about the Manner of the Presence, arose incidentally upon the Controversy of Images: The Council at Constantinople decreed, that the Sacrament was the Image of Christ, in which the substance of Bread and Wine remained. Those at Nice how furiously soever they fell upon them, for calling the Sacrament the Image of Christ, yet do no where blame them for saying that the substance of Bread and Wine remained in it: For indeed the Opinion of Damascene and of most of the Greek Church was, That there was an Assumption of the Bread and Wine into an Vnion with the Body of Christ. The Council of Constantinople brought in their Decision occasionally, that being considered as the setled Doctrine of the Church; whereas those of Nice did visibly Innovate and Falsify the Tradition: For they affirm as Damascene had done before them, that the Elements were called the Antitypes of Christ’s Body, only before they were consecrated, but not after it: Which they say none of the Fathers had done. This is so notoriously False, that no Man can pretend now to justify them in it, since there are above twenty of the Fathers that were before them, who in plain words call the Elements after Consecration, the Figure and Antitype of Christ’s Body: Here then was the Tradition and Practice of the Church falsified, which is no small Prejudice against those that support the Doctrine, as well as against the Credit of that Council.

About thirty Years after that Council, Paschase Radbert Abbot of Corby in France, did very plainly assert the corporal Presence in the Eucharist: He is acknowledged both by Bellarmin and Sirmondus to be the first Writer, that did on purpose advance and explain that Doctrine: He himself values his Pains in that Matter, and as he laments the slowness of some in believing it, so he pretends that he had moved many to assent to it: But he confesses that some blamed him for ascribing a Sense to the Words of Christ that was not consonant to Truth. There was but one Book writ in that Age to second him, the Name of the Author was lost till Mabillon discovered that it was writ by one Herigerus Abbot of Cob. But all the Eminent Men and the great Writers of that time, wrote plainly against this Doctrine; and affirmed that the Bread and Wine remained in the Sacrament, and did nourish our Bodies as other Meats do. Those were Rabanus Maurus Archbishop of Mentz, Amalarius Archbishop of Triers, Heribald Bishop of Auxerre, Bertram or Ratramne, John Scot Erigena, Walafridus Strabus, Florus, and Christian Druthmar. Three of these set themselves on purpose to refute Paschase.

Rabanus Maurus in an Epistle to Abbot Egilon wrote against Paschase for saying, that it was that Body that was born of the Virgin, that was crucified and raised up again, which was daily offered up. And though that Book is lost, yet as he himself refers his Reader to it in his Penitential, so we have an Account given of it by the Anonymous defender of Paschase.

Ratramne was commanded by Charles the Bald, then Emperour, to write upon that Subject, which he in the beginning of his Book promises to do, not trusting to his own Sense, but following the Steps of the Holy Fathers. He tells us, that there were different Opinions about it: Some believing that the Body of Christ was there without a Figure: Others saying that it was there in a Figure, or Mystery: Upon which he apprehended that a great Schism must follow. His Book is very short and very plain: He asserts our Doctrine as expresly as we our selves can do: He delivers it in the same Words, and proves it by many of the same Arguments and Authorities that we bring.

Raban and Ratramne were without dispute reckoned among the first Men of that Age.

John Scot was also commanded by the same Emperour to write on the same Subject: He was one of the most Learned and the most Ingenious Men of the age; and was in great Esteem both with the Emperour, and with our King Alfred: He was reckoned both a Saint and a Martyr. He did formally refute Paschase’s Doctrine, and assert ours. His Book is indeed lost, but a full Account of it is given us by other Writers of that Time. And it is a great Evidence, that his Opinion in this Matter was not then thought to be contrary to the general Sense of the Church in that Age: For he having writ against St. Augustin’s Doctrine concerning Predestination, there was a very severe Censure of him and of his Writings published under the Name of the Church of Lions: In which they do not once reflect on him for his Opinions touching the Eucharist. It appears from this, that their Doctrine concerning the Sacrament was then generally received: Since both Ratramne and he, though they differ’d extreamly in that Point of Predestination, yet both agreed in this. It is probable that the Saxon Homily that was read in England on Easter-day was taken from Scot’s Book; which does fully reject the corporal Presence. This is enough to shew that Paschase’s Opinion was an Innovation broached in the Ninth Century, and was opposed by all the Great Men of that Age.

The Tenth Century was the blackest and most ignorant of all the Ages of the Church: There is not one Writer in that Age that gives us any clear Account of the Doctrine of the Church: Such remote Hints as occur do still savour of Ratramne’s Doctrine. All Men were then asleep, and so it was a fit time for the Tares that Paschase had sown to grow up in it. The Popes of that Age were such a Succession of Monsters, that Baronius cannot forbear to make the saddest Exclamations possible against their Debaucheries, their Cruelties, and their other Vices. About the middle of the Eleventh Century, after this Dispute had slept almost two hundred Years, it was again revived.

Bruno Bishop of Angiers, and Berengarius his Archdeacon, maintained the Doctrine of Ratramne: Little mention is made of the Bishop, but the Archdeacon is spoken of as a Man of great Piety: So that he past for a Saint, and was a Man of such Learning that when he was brought before Pope Nicolaus, no Man could resist him. He writ against Paschase, and had many followers. The Historians of that Age tell us, that his Doctrine had overspread all France. The Books writ against him by Lanfranc and others, are filled with an impudent corrupting of all Antiquity. Many Councils were held upon this Matter, and these together with the Terrours of Burning, which was then beginning to be the common Punishment of Heresy, made him renounce his Opinion: But he returned to it again; yet he afterwards renounced it: Though Lanfranc reproaches him that it was not the Love of Truth, but the Fear of Death that brought him to it. And his final Retracting of that renouncing of his Opinion is lately found in France, as I have been credibly informed. Thus this Opinion that in the Ninth Century was generally received, and was condemned by neither Pope nor Council, was become so odious in the Eleventh Century, that none durst own it. And he who had the Courage to own it, yet was not resolute enough to stand to it: For about this Time the Doctrine of extirpating Hereticks, and of deposing such Princes as were Defective in that Matter, was universally put in Practice. Great Bodies of Men began to separate from the Roman Communion in the Southern Parts of France; and one of the chief Points of their Doctrine, was their believing that Christ was not corporally Present in the Eucharist; and that he was there only in a Figure or Mystery. But now that the contrary Doctrine was established, and that those who denied it were adjudged to be burnt, it is no wonder if it quickly gained Ground, when on the one hand the Priests saw their Interest in promoting it, and all People felt the Danger of denying it. The Anathema’s of the Church, and the Terrours of Burning, were infallible Things, to silence Contradiction at least, if not to gain Assent.

Soon after this Doctrine was received, the Schoolmen began to refine upon it,⁵⁵ as they did upon every thing else. The Master of the Sentences would not determine how Christ was Present; whether formally, or substantially, or some other way. Some Schoolmen thought that the Matter of Bread was destroyed; but that the Form remained, to be the Form of Christ’s Body, that was the Matter of it. Others thought that the Matter of the Elements remained, and that the Form only was destroyed: But that to which many inclined, was the Assumption of the Elements into an Union with the Body of Christ, or a hypostatical Union of the eternal Word to them, by which they became as truly a Body to Christ, as that which he has in Heaven: Yet it was not the same, but a different Body.

Stephen Bishop of Autun was the First that fell on the Word of Transubstantiation. Amalric in the beginning of the Thirteenth Century denied in express Words the corporal Presence:⁵⁶ He was condemned in the Fourth Council of the Lateran as an Heretick, and his Body was ordered to be taken up and burnt: And in opposition to him Transubstantiation was decreed. Yet the Schoolmen continued to offer different Explanations of this for a great while after that: But in conclusion all agreed to explain it as was formerly set forth. It appears by the crude Way in which it was at first explained, that it was a Novelty: And that Men did not know how to mould and frame it; but at last it was licked into shape; the whole Philosophy being cast into such a Mould as agreed with it. And therefore in the present Age, in which that Philosophy has lost its Credit, great Pains are taken to suppress the New and freer Way of Philosophy, as that which cannot be so easily subdued to support this Doctrine, as the Old one was. And the Arts that those who go into the New Philosophy, take to reconcile their Scheme to this Doctrine, shew that there is nothing that subtile and unsincere Men will not venture on: For, since they make Extension to be of the Essence of Matter, and think that Accidents are only the Modes of Matter, which have no proper being of themselves, it is evident, that a Body cannot be without its Extension, and that Accidents cannot subsist without their Subject; so that this can be in no sort reconciled to Transubstantiation: And therefore they would willingly avoid this special Manner of the Presence, and only in General assert that Christ is corporally Present. But the Decrees of the Lateran and Trent Councils make it evident, that Transubstantiation is now a Doctrine that is bound upon them, by the Authority of the Church and of Tradition: And that they are as much bound to believe it as to believe the corporal Presence it self. Thus the going off from the Simplicity in which Christ did deliver the Sacrament, and in which the Church at first received it, into some sublime Expressions about it, led Men once out of the way, and they still went farther and farther from it. Pious and Rhetorical Figures, pursued far by Men of heated Imaginations, and of inflamed Affections, were followed with Explanations invented by colder and more designing Men afterwards, and so it increased till it grew by degrees to that which at last it settled on.

But after all, if the Doctrine of the Corporal Presence had rested only in a Speculation, tho’ we should have judged those who held it to be very bad Philosophers, and no good Criticks, yet we could have endured it; if it had rested there, and had not gone on to be a matter of practice, by the Adoration and Processions, with every thing else of that kind, which followed upon it; for this corrupted the Worship.

The Lutherans believe a Consubstantiation, and that both Christ’s Body and Blood, and the Substance of the Elements are together in the Sacrament: That some explain by an Vbiquity, which they think is communicated to the Human Nature of Christ, by which his Body is every where as well as in the Sacrament: Whereas others of them think that since the words of Christ must needs be true in a literal sense, his Body and Blood is therefore in the Sacrament, but in, with, and under the Bread and Wine. All this we think is ill grounded, and is neither agreeable to the words of the Institution, nor to the nature of things. A great deal of that which was formerly set forth in defence of our Doctrine falls likewise upon this. The Vbiquity communicated to the Humane Nature, as it seems a thing in it self impossible, so it gives no more to the Sacrament than to every thing else. Christ’s Body may be said to be in every thing, or rather every thing may be said to be his Body and Blood, as well as the Elements in the Sacrament. The impossibility of a Bodies being without extension, or in more places at once, lies against this, as well as against Transubstantiation. But yet after all, this is only a Point of Speculation, nothing follows upon it in practice, no Adoration is offered to the Elements; and therefore we judge that Speculative Opinions may be born with, when they neither fall upon the Fundamentals of Christianity, to give us false Ideas of the Essential parts of our Religion, nor affect our practice, and chiefly when the Worship of God is maintained in its Purity, for which we see God has expressed so particular a concern, giving it the Word which of all others raises in us the most sensible and the strongest Ideas, calling it Jealousie; that we reckon, we ought to watch over this with much caution. We can very well bear with some Opinions, that we think ill grounded, as long as they are only matters of Opinion, and have no Influence neither on Mens Morals, nor their Worship. We still hold Communion with Bodies of Men, that as we judge think wrong, but yet do both live well, and maintain the Purity of the Worship of God. We know the great design of Religion is to govern Men’s Lives, and to give them right Ideas of God, and of the Ways of Worshipping him. All Opinions that do not break in upon these, are things in which great forbearance is to be used; large Allowances are to be made for Mens Notions in all other things; and therefore we think that neither Consubstantiation nor Transubstantiation, how ill grounded soever we take both to be, ought to dissolve the Union and Communion of Churches: But it is quite another thing, if under either of these Opinions an Adoration of the Elements is taught and practised.

This we believe is plain Idolatry, when an Insensible piece of Matter, such as Bread and Wine, has Divine Honours paid it; when it is believed to be God, when it is called God, and is in all respects Worshipped with the same Adoration that is offered up to Almighty God. This we think is gross Idolatry. Many Writers of the Church of Rome have acknowledged that if Transubstantiation is not true, their Worship is a strain of Idolatry beyond any that is practised among the most depraved of all the Heathens.

The only excuse that is offered in this matter, is, that since the declared Object of Worship is Jesus Christ, believed to be there present, then whether he is present or not, the Worship terminates in him; both the secret acts of the Worshippers, and the professed Doctrine of the Church do lodge it there. And therefore it may be said, that tho’ he should not be actually present, yet the act of Adoration being directed to him, must be accepted of God, as right meant, and duly directed, even tho’ there should happen to be a mistake in the outward application of it.

In answer to this, we do not pretend to determine, how far this may be pardoned by God; whose Mercies are infinite, and who does certainly consider, chiefly the Hearts of his Creatures, and is merciful to their Infirmities, and to such Errors as arise out of their weakness, their Hearts being sincere before him. We ought to consider this action as it is in it self, and not according to Mens Apprehensions and Opinions about it. If the conceits that the Ancient Idolaters had both concerning their Gods, and the Idols that they Worshipped, will excuse from Idolatry, it will be very hard to say that there were ever any Idolaters in the World. Those who Worshipped the Sun, thought that the great Divinity was lodged there, as in a Vehicle or Temple; but yet they were not by reason of that misconception excused from being Idolaters.

If a false Opinion upon which a practice is founded, taken up without any good authority, will excuse Mens Sins, it will be easie for them to find Apologies for every thing. If the Worship of the Elements had been commanded by God, then an Opinion concerning it might excuse the carrying of that too far; but there being no Command for it, no hint given about it, nor any insinuation given of any such practice in the beginnings of Christianity; an Opinion that Men have taken up cannot justifie a new practice, of which neither the first nor a great many of the following Ages knew any thing. An Opinion cannot justifie Mens practice founded upon it, if that proves to be false. All the softning that can be given it, is, that it is a sin of Ignorance; but that does not change the nature of the action, how far soever it may go with relation to the Judgments of God: If the Opinion is rashly taken up and stiffly maintained, the Worship that is introduced upon it, is aggravated by the ill foundation that it is built upon. We know God by his Essence is every where; but this will not justifie our Worshipping any Material Object upon this pretence, because God is in it; we ought never to Worship Him towards any visible Object, unless he were evidently declaring his Glory in it; as he did to Moses in the Flaming-bush; to the Israelites on Mount Sinai, and in the Cloud of Glory; or to us Christians in a sublimer manner in the Humane Nature of Jesus Christ.

But by this parity of Reason, tho’ we were sure that Christ were in the Elements, yet since he is there Invisible, as God is by his Essence every where, we ought to direct no Adoration to the Elements; we ought only to Worship God, and his Son Christ Jesus, in the grateful remembrance of his Sufferings for us, which are therein commemorated. We ought not to suffer our Worship to terminate on the Visible Elements; because if Christ is in them, yet he does not manifest that visibly to us: Since therefore the Opinion of the Corporal Presence, upon which this Adoration is founded, is False, and since no such Worship is so much as mentioned, much less commanded in Scripture; and since there can scarce be any Idolatry in the World so gross, as that it shall not excuse it self by some such Doctrine, by which all the acts of Worship are made to terminate finally in God; we must conclude that this Plea cannot excuse the Church of Rome from Idolatry, even though their Doctrine of the Corporal Presence were true: But much less if it is False. We do therefore condemn this Worship as Idolatry, without taking upon us to define the Extent of the Mercies of God, towards all those who are involved in it.

If all the Premises are True, then it is needless to insist longer on explaining the following Paragraph of the Article; that Christ’s Body is received in the Sacrament in a heavenly and spiritual Manner, and that the Mean by which it is received is Faith: For that is such a natural result of them, that it appears evident of it self, as being the Conclusion that arises out of those Premises.

The last Paragraph is against the reserving, carrying about, the lifting up, or the worshipping the Sacrament. The Point concerning the Worship, which is the most essential of them, has been already considered. As for the reserving or carrying the Sacrament about; it is very visible, that the Institution is, Take, eat, and drink ye all of it: which does import that the consuming the Elements, is a part of the Institution; and by consequence that they are a Sacrament only as they are distributed and received. It is true the practice of reserving or sending about the Elements, began very early; the state of things at first made it almost unavoidable. When there were yet but a few converted to Christianity, and when there were but few Priests to serve them, they neither could nor durst meet all together, especially in the times of Persecution; so some parts of the Elements were sent to the absents, to those in Prison, and particularly to the Sick, as a Symbol of their being parts of the Body, and that they were in the Peace and Communion of the Church. The Bread was sent with the Wine, and it was sent about by any Person whatsoever; sometimes by Boys;⁵⁷ as appears in the famous Story of Serapion in the Third Century. So that the condition of the Christians in that time, made that necessary to keep them all in the sense of their obligation to Union and Communion with the Church; and that could not well be done in any other way. But we make a great difference between this practice, when taken up out of necessity, tho’ not exactly conform to the first Institution; and the continuing it out of Superstition, when there is no need of it. Therefore instead of Consecrating a larger portion of Elements than is necessary for the occasion, and the reserving what is over and above; and the setting that out with great Pomp on the Altar, to be worshipped, or the carrying it about with a vast Magnificence in a Procession, invented to put the more honour on it; or the sending it to the Sick with Solemnity; we chuse rather to Consecrate only so much as may be judged fit for the number of those who are to communicate. And when the Sacrament is over, we do in imitation of the practice of some of the Ancients, consume what is left, that there may be no occasion given either to Superstition or Irreverence. And for the Sick, or the Prisoners, we think it is a greater Mean to quicken their Devotion, as well as it is a closer adhering to the Words of the Institution, to Consecrate in their Presence: for tho’ we can bear with the practice of the Greek Church, of reserving and sending about the Eucharist, when there is no Idolatry joyned with it; yet we cannot but think that this is the continuance of a practice which the state of the first Ages introduced, and that was afterwards kept up, out of a too scrupulous imitation of that time; without considering that the difference of the state of the Christians, in the former and in the succeeding Ages, made that what was at first innocently practised (since a real necessity may well excuse a want of exactness, in some matters that are only positive) became afterwards an occasion of much Superstition, and in conclusion ended in Idolatry. Those ill effects that it had, are more than is necessary to justifie our practice in reducing this strictly to the first Institution.

As for the lifting up of the Eucharist, there is not a word of it in the Gospel; nor is it mentioned by St. Paul. Neither Justin Martyr, nor Cyril of Jerusalem speak of it; there is nothing concerning it neither in the Constitutions, nor in the Areopagite. In those first Ages all the Elevation that is spoken of, is the lifting up their Hearts to God. The Elevation of the Sacrament began to be practised in the Sixth Century; for it is mentioned in the Liturgy called St. Chrysostome’s, but believed to be much latter than his time.⁵⁸ German, a Writer of the Greek Church of the Thirteenth Century, is the first that descants upon it; he speaks not of it as done, in order to the Adoration of it, but makes it to represent both Christ’s being lifted up on the Cross, and also his Resurrection. Ivo of Chartres, who lived in the end of the 11th Century, is the first of all the Latins that speaks of it; but then it was not commonly practised; for the Author of the Micrologus, tho’ he writ at the same time, yet does not mention it, who yet is very minute upon all particulars relating to this Sacrament. Nor does Ivo speak of it as done in order to Adoration, but only as a form of shewing it to the People.⁵⁹ Durand, a Writer of the 13th Century, is the first that speaks of the Elevation as done in order to the Adoration. So it appears that our Church by cutting off these Abuses, has restored this Sacrament to its Primitive Simplicity, according to the Institution, and the practice of the first Ages.

Footnotes

1. 2 Cor. 10.5. ↩

2. Exod. 12.11. ↩

3. 1 Cor. 5.7. John 1.29. Compare Matt. 26.26. Mark 14.22. ↩

4. Luke 22.19. 1 Cor. 11.23. ↩

5. Heb 9.20. ↩

6. Psal. 116. ↩

7. Levit. 7.26, 27. Levit. 17.14. ↩

8. John 6.32, 33. ↩

9. 40. v.
   ↩

10. 47, 48, 51. v. ↩

11. 53, 54, 55. v. ↩

12. 56. v.
    ↩

13. v. 6• ↩

14. Marc Nevochim. ↩

15. Isa. 12.3. ↩

16. 1 Cor. 10.16. ↩

17. 1 Cor. 11.27, 29. ↩

18. 1 Pet. 4.17. ↩

19. 32. v.
    ↩

20. 2 Cor. 13. last verse. Phil. 2.1. Eph. 3.9. ↩

21. Phil. 3.10. ↩

22. 1 Cor. 10.18, 20. ↩

23. 1 Cor. 10.18. ↩

24. Lib. 3. de Doct. Chris. c. 16. ↩

25. Hom. 7. in Levit. ↩

26. Apolog. 2. ↩

27. Lib. 4. de haer▪ c. 34. Lib. 1. adver. Marcion. c. 14. Lib. 3 adver. Marcion. c. 19. ↩

28. Lib. 8. contra Celsum. ↩

29. Ep. 76. Ep. 63. ↩

30. In Anchoreto. ↩

31. In orat. de baptis. Christi. ↩

32. De Benedict. Patriarch. c. 9. Hom. 24. in Ep. ad Cor. ↩

33. Comm. in St. Matth. c. 26. ↩

34. Cit. apud Fulgent. de Baptismo. ↩

35. Aug. Ep. 23. ad Bonifac. Serm. 2. in Psal. 33. Chrys. Ep. ad Caesar. & in comment. in Ep. ad Gal. c. 5. ↩

36. Tertul. Lib. 4. adv. Marci. c. 40. ↩

37. Epist. ad Celarium. ↩

38. In Photi. Bibli. Cod. 229. ↩

39. Dial. 1st. and 2d. cont. Eutych. ↩

40. Lib. de duabus nat. Christ▪ ↩

41. Apol. 2▪ ↩

42. Lib. 5. adv▪ Haeres. c. 2. ↩

43. De Resurrect. c. 8. In Mat. c. 15. ↩

44. Con. Tol. 16. Can. 6. ↩

45. Cyril. Ca tech Mest. 5. Chrysost Hom. in Euch. To. 5. Damas. lib. 4. de Ortho. fide. c. 14. ↩

46. Lib. 4. adv. Marcion. c. 40. ↩

47. Comm. in Psal 3. ↩

48. Lib. cont. 〈◊〉 12. ↩

49. Defen. Conc. Chalced. l. 9. ↩

50. Ep. 23. ad Bonifac. ↩

51. Lib. 20. con. Faust. c. 21. in Psal. 98. v. 5. ↩

52. Comm. in 1 Ep. ad Cor. ↩

53. Lib. 4. de Sacram. c. 5. ↩

54. Greg. Docret. Lib. 3. Tit. 42. cap. 10. ↩

55. Lib. 4. Dist. 11. ↩

56. De Sacram. Altaris, c. 13. ↩

57. Eus. Hist. lib. 6. c. 44. ↩

58. Serm. Const. in Theor. Tit. 12. Bibl. patr. Ivo. Carn. Ep. de Sacr. Missae. T. 2. Bibl. pat. ↩

59. Dur. Rat. div. offic. lib. 4. de Sexta parte Can. ↩