Hey on Article XXVIII: Of the Lord's Supper

I. The History of this Article might be made very extensive; but I will endeavour to confine myself to such incidents as seem likely to be most useful.—As all incidents are built upon the .

| tura

,

316 BOOK Iv. ART. XXVIII. SECT, I.

tural account of the Institution of the Lord’s Supper, it will be proper to give that, before we proceed; in full, or in substance. All the passages of Scripture which mention it, might be soon read ; but that account which 1s contained in our Prayer of Consecration, and makes a kind of har. mony, seems sufficient. —< In the same night that he was betrayed,” &c.—The things principally to be noticed are the metaphorical expressions : But we should not suffer ourselves to be hindered by the familiarity and commonness of the sounds, from observing, how strange a thing it 1s to be commanded to eat the flesh of our teacher and Lord“; and how much more strange to be com- manded to drink his Blood; though it were only in an emblematical way: especially considering, that the persons who first received the command, were Jews, to whom tasting blood was prohibited. —This strangeness will naturally make us go back to the Old Testament in order to see the nature of the Jewish Sacrifices, to which allufion is made: /n- offerings®, peace-offerings, Passover.

The /n-offering ; blood, sled, sprinkled, called the blood of the Covenant.—Loaf broken, part given to God (or his Priest); Animal &roken, or divided into pieces.—The Peace-offering; for benefits past, or future; * in remembrance” of Mercies.— Ani- mal partly given, partly made into a fea/?, eaten

with

= This command does appear (take, eat, this is my Body) in- dependently of John vi.—though when | read that Chapter as prophetical, and consider what Bishop Cleaver says of the Ana- logy between John iii. and John vi. I am of opinion it does relate to the Eucharist, —It is not so plain as a narration ; and it contains obscure intimations in the way of reproof, like John iii. but I feel satisfied with that Interpretation, which refers it to the Sacrament.

d These were mentioned, Append, to Art. x1. Sect. II. and XxV11,

BOOK IV. 11. 31)

with friends. Drink-offering, implying Cup.—The Passover—a Lamb slain, eaten “ in remembrance” of redemption. He who reads these things will be aware also (Hammond on Matt. xxvi. 26.) of the Jewish custom of breaking and distributing Bread, as an act of kindness, and of putting round a Grace- cup, or cup of blessing or Salvation: And will know, that the Heathens had sacrifices and feasts upon them, with /ibations, or cups of blessing. (Cup of Salvation, Psalm cxvi. 13.) : these things consi- dered, we shall perceive, that our Saviour’s com- mands would appear natural and intelligible to Jews; unless they should think, that, in the new Institu- tion, the different fort of sacrifices were oddly mixed and confounded together.

11. No such notion, nor any other, hindered the institution from being universally adopted by Christian converts. They might tee, that the Death of Christ, taken as a sacrifice, resembled, in different points, different sorts of offerings; and therefore, that they / had prefigured his Death. — (Appendix to Art. x1. Sect. xxvii.) At first the ordinance was probably /imple ; but afterwards it became more varied and complex ; as well as more animated, or passionate; and more adorned and magnificent. — When persons had great dangers to encounter in the profession of Christianity, it naturally heated their imagination and passions; and led them to do every thing with earnestness and fervour*.

The idea of the Ascodrutæ, and others of the fame turn, would have place here“, as well as in Baptism,

We

© This was said of Sacraments in general, but the remark is wanted here. | 4 Art; XXV. 11, and xXxVII. vII I.

318 BOOK Iv. ART. xxvI II. SECT. 111.

We meet with the expreshons, Mia Catechu- menorum, and Missa® Fidelium, to denote certain parts of divine service, in ancient times.—The fideles were mature, complete Christians, who staid in the place of worship, and received the Com- munion, after the Catechumens were dismissed*.—. I do not think, that our knowledge is perfectly clear about all the particulars of theie matters; but it is probable, that Missa Catechumenorum meant the service before the Communion, and Missa Fide- lium, the Communion- Service: and that the word Mass, with its connexions, missal, &c. had this origin; (Messa, Messe): Mass continued to be the name for the Lord’s Supper® in England during part of the reign of Edward VI. but was probably odious. |

111. Whoever came to the Communion (and all the faithful, except penitents, communicated at first) 5 some offerings, Ner-to their respective fortunes; chiefly of bread and wine; out of these the Priests took as much as it was neces- fary to consecrate. The bread was common leavened bread, such as was ordinarily used. The Romish Wafers, which are unleavened, and very thin, and round, like a coin, and so small that each person can take an whole one in his mouth without danger of letting any of it drop, did not come into use till the eleventh or twelfth Century.— Some chose to use unleavened bread, as what had been used at the Jewish Passover, the type of the Lord’s Supper; and that occasioned a long dil- pute between the Greeks and the learned of the Western Church. Attempts were made at dit-

| ferent © Bingham, Book 15.— Wheatly, page 328. f Catechumens are called, in our Homily, © Learners in Religion,” page 356, 8vo. Hom. 25th on the Sacrament. And the Augsburg Confession (said to be like ours) will not allow, that it abolishes the Mass.—Syntagma, page 30. In the 11th Cent, —Prieftley*s Hist, Corr. 2. page 56.

BOOK IV. ART. xXXVI II. SECT. iv. v. 319

ferent times, to introduce water instead of wine, and water mixed with wine; and milk, and honey : Grapes also, and even Cheese, had their Advocates. — Those who avoided wine were called Eucratitæ, as avoiding it on principles of abstemiousness : if they were for pure water, they were called Aqua- rians; and those who used bread and cheese, were called rr r.

Mixing some water with the wine, seems to have been a prevailing custom amongst rational Chris- tians for a great length of time; it arose from a notion, that the Jerws used to mix water with their paschal cup, on account of their wine being strong; and it descended even to the time after our Refer- mation in England.—See Wheatly on the Common Prayer, page 289. 292.

iv. In the earlier part of the Ceremony, it was thought a proper thing (as in Baptism) to follow the advice of the Apostle literally, “ salute one another with an holy kiss; “ but the different sexes did not salute each other.

The ancient Christians rose gradually in their devotion, till they came to the most solemn and animated giving of thanks : that was called Euxæ- eic, and thence the solemnity got its* name of Eucharist. In this part was the Trisagium, a short Hymn so called from its having the word &zy:oc, Holy, repeated thrice : it was much the same with ours, „Therefore with Angels,” &c’.

v. After the communion, part of the conse- crated elements, was sometimes preserved in the Church, for such as had not been able to attend :

and

Rom. xvi. 16 and parallel places.

See Wheatly’s account, page 302.—Bingham, Book 15.

! For the Greeks see Cave’s second Appendix. They seem to have been quite enthusiasts about this Hymn. Alix has written an History of it.

and part was sometimes allowed to be carried to the Houses of the fick; but this last custom pot abused, and was left off: children had a part: and sometimes a part was burnt; (Lev. viii. 32.)

A good deal, I suppose, of the offerings re. mained unconsecrated. The Priests had a portion of them, and the rest furnished the repast called Ayann, or Love-feast; an entertainment“ origi. nally of a truly Christian fort, at which the rich and poor met together. Pity that any scandal should ever occasion its being left off!

These things, or most of them, may be found in Bingham’s Antiquities. He mentions such a thing as a Family-Communion®.

vi. For many hundred years after the publi- cation of the Christian Religion, though we now find it the more rational the more we consider it, Reason was on the decline. Passion had, on that account, the freer scope; and religious passion, when not regulated by reason, becomes supersti- tion, mysticiim, enthusiasm. In the dark ages, men ran into all these. Though no form of speech is more natural than Metaphor when an emblema- tical rite is intended to express a fact of great im- portance, yet nothing is more obvious to fanaticism, than to seize upon a metaphorical expression, in things grand and awful, and raise its sense to every height that it will bear; indeed the most extra- vagant sense of a metaphorical expression may be its /teral sense. Thus we may conceive that, _

| nig

m See Lardner’s account of Pliny’s Ep. to Trajan; where he mentions Hallett as treating on the subjet.—Lardner’s Works, Vol. 7. page 311,—vee allo Lardner, Vol. 8. page 71.— Lucian’s account of Peregrinus, and the Christians having a good supper together; and being brethren,

• Bing 3 15. 4. Jo

BOOK IV. ART. XxxVI II. SECT. vi. 321

high and lofty things had been said, for a long® time, in a declamatory way, of the necessity of eating the e and drinking the hood of Christ, and men kept trying to surpass each other in flights of devotion, they might at last come to profess, as a Doctrine, that the consecrated bread and wine were really, without a figure, turned into the body and blood of Jelus Christ ! — This Doctrine is usually called the Doctrine of Transub/tantiation; because those who hold it, say that, on the conse- cration, the bread and wine lose their own substance, and are changed or transmuted into the substance of the Body of Christ. Vet as the bread and wine appear to be {till the same, this Hypothesis is helped out by another; that though the /ub/fance be changed, the accidents remain unchanged ; ac- cidents are hardness, colour, and in short all the qualities by which we know one substance from another.—-The discovery of this doctrine of Tran- substantiation, 1s ascribed to one Paschaise, in Latin Radbertus Paschasius?, a French Monk, who had afterwards the magnificent German Abbey of Corbey, with the Sovereignty annexed, But the

term,

o Chrysostem is said to have written and spoken some very de- clamatory expressions on this subje& : as, that the Lips were tinged with the blood of our Lord, &c. but Collier, (Eccles. Hist, Vol. 2. page 369, or near it,) distinguishes between the Orato- rical works of Chrysostom and his reasoning works. Of the reasoning sort is the Letter to Cz/zr:us, which the Papists are unwilling to allow genuine. — By the way, Collier takes the tinging, &c. in an higher sense than I do: when we drink the blood of Christ, aur lips must be zinged with it: it is only fixing the attention on the same metaphor.

? Cave, Hist. Lit. Paschasius, or Vol. 2, page 2. opening of the gth Century: that it was not known during the Nestorian and Eutychian Controversies, appears from a passage quoted b Bishop Pearson ; on Creed, page 328. 1st Edit. or page 162, fol. co Gelasius (Bishop of Rome in 490) de duabus Naturis

term, or name, was not given till the thirteenth Century; and in the {ame Century the Doctrine first received the support and authority of a Coun- cil . Lanfranc (Archbishop of Canterbury at last) was the person who first brought the Doctrine into England; about the middle of the eleventh Cen- tury.— (See Fox’s Mart. Vol. 2, page 457.)— Strange as this Doctrine seems, it has been found to seize and affect the mind, so that even improved nations have been unwilling to give it up: a cru- cified Deity present to the senses ! not through Incarnation, but Impanation / what an idea! enough to fill the mind with sacred horror, (no doubt intervening) and to make every ordinary sentiment appear insipid |

vit. It must not be concluded, from what has been said, that all those who professed what is commonly called the Doctrine of Transubstantia- tion, explained the particulars exactly in the same way: where there was fo much room for suppo- tion, it would have been a wonder if several hypo- theses had not appeared; they may, however, all come under the general notion of corporal presence”. And so may the hypothesis of Consub/tantiation, of which by and by.

vIIii. Opposition was soon made to the doctrine of Transubstantiation; particularly by Bertram, or Ratram, a Monk of Corbey*, and John Scot, called Erigena, because he was a native of Erin, or Irin,

that

1 In 1215, at the third Lateran Council; See Cave’s Hist. Lit. under Innocent the Third.

[…]

Cave’s Hist. Lit. Vol. 2. page 2. conspectus, or opening of 9th Century, (for Berenger, see Sect. x.)

BOOK iv. ART. xxV III. SECT. IX. 323

that is, of Irelaud. Scot’s book is lost, but Bertram’s remains.

ix. This Doctrine comes under the general observation made on all the Popish Doctrines con- tamed in the opening of the twenty-second Article, And we should now see in what way it has © give occasion to many super/titions.” |

Some superstitions, to which the Doctrine of Tran- substantiation gave occasion, will be the subjects of some of the following Articles; a few others may be mentioned. It occafioned the custom of sopping the bread in the wine ;—of reserving the wafer with a view to performing cures, and stopping public calamities ;—of burning the elements to ashes; —of making processious in the streets, during which every one present is to ꝶueel: - of elevating the Hoftia, that every one may see and adore his God.—This Doctrine has allo occasioned the mul- tiplying of Altars in churches ; and has drawn the attention of the Romanists from every part of public worship which we look upon as valuable.— The Romish casuists very gravely determine what* punishments are to be inflicted on a mouse, that is so unfortunate as to gnaw the consecrated elements: and how things-are to be conducted 1n case a fick Priest should vormt them up. |

On the other hand, the doctrine of Transub- stantiation is thought to have put a” stop to the custom of giving the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper to Infants in the Western Church, They used to have it given by the Priest, who dipped his finger in the chalice, and then put it into the

child’s

t See the original passages in Bennet’s Directions, under this 29th Article,—See also Mosheim, Cent. 1 3. 2. 4. 2,—And the thing is mentioned briefly in Fulke’s Rhemish Testament on

1 Cor, xt. 29. opposite to folio 288. Wall, page 516, 4to. or 2.9 16. | HEE i

324 BOOK iv. ART, XXVII1. SECT. x.

child’s mouth, But the moderns mix the bread with the wine, © and put to the child’s lips a drop or two of that mixture quickly after his Baptism ; after which he receives no more till the age of dilcretion*,”

x. But let us come to the age of the Reforma- tion. The doctrine of which we are speaking, was one of those which were objected to by the Mal. denses? : But yet it was not decidedly opposed for some time: even Luther only changed transub- stantiation into consub/tantiation*®, Wickliffe had, in some parts of his works, expressed himself strongly against this abuse, but Melanf/on* complained, that, on comparing different parts, he found him confused in the question about the Holy Sacrament. Of the forty propositions of Wickliffe’s which the Council of Conflance condemned, the three first re- late to our present subject ; (fee Baxter on Coun- cils, page 431, or Chap. 13. Sect. 2.) And the third is against the Bodily Presence in general; and therefore against what Luther afterwards called Con- substantiation. I think John Huss, and Ferome of Prague did not differ from Wickliffe in this, materially, if at all.

Con substantiation meant, that the substance of Christ’s Body and Blood were present in the Holy Sacrament ./ the substance of the bread and wine. Luther’s persisting in this notion caused an | unhappy

• Wall, page 515. 517. Wall, 2. 7. 3 page 386. |

2 This may just be mentioned here, as Luther is said to have borrowed his Consubstantiation from Berenger, in 1035 : see his Recantation in Cave’s Hist. Lit. Conspectus Sæc. x1. —But Berenger made sever:1 Recantations ; they are not to be de- pended on. What Fox gives as his (Berenger’s) real sentiments,

out ofa Book of Lanfranc’s, seems most worthy of notice. (Mart.

Vol. 2. page 458).—Berenger, from that, seems to have thought much as we do now.

• Gilpin’s Lives of Reformers, page 65.

BOOK IV. ART. xXVIII. SECT. x. 3235

unhappy division amongst the reformed Churches, which, I believe, continues to this day. Luther explained his consubstantiat ion by saying, that in red-hot iron, two substances are united, heat* and fire : he supported it, by what was called Ubiquity; by affirming, that the Son of God was every where, ubique ;—or thus; God is every where; Christ fits at the rig/it hand of God; therefore Christ is every where©.—Yet Luther was, in gene- ral, a good and forcible reasoner: but when a man is determined to maintain by reasoning a doctrine totally unintelligible to reason, he must take the appearance of argument for the reality. What led him, probably, to change transubstantiation for consubstantiation, was, what is urged in our Article, that Transubstantiation takes away the essence of a Sacrament“. | The Romanists make the ordinance of which we are speaking, very complicated and gaudy; and they profess the doctrine of Transubstantiation without reserve*®. I may use the present tense, as they have made no material changes, that I know of, since the age with which we are now con- cerned, the Age of the Reformation. The acts of the Council of Trent, and the Catechism made by its direction, will supply us with any particulars of which we may want to take notice,

The

d Maclaine’s Mosheim, Cent. 16, 1. 2. 21. and note (2).

Luther is said to have given up this ubiquity as a proof of

Christ’s corporal presence in the Eucharist; but rigid Lutherans

were still Ubiquitarians.

[…]

—Confessio Wittemb. de Eucharistia, Syntagma, page 159, 160. © See Art. 1. Sect. xv III. Vol. 2. page 275, Note 85 where

is an expression from a French Prayerbook: after Communion

the communicant is directed to say, Seigneur, &c. je vous al

regu avec joie,” This order 1s also given;

| Ton Createur tu recevras

Au moins a Paques, &.

326 BOOK IV, ART, xxvIII. SECT. x.

The thirteenth Session of the Council, is upon the Eucharist. The first chapter declares, that there is no contradiction between Christ’s bod being always naturally at the right hand of God, and sacramentally in other places: where ideas are wanting, how useful are words! Yet such manner of — * we are told, is not expressible by words, but is possible to God. Afterwards we are told, that, in the sacrament, the real Body of Christ exists sub /pecie panis, &c.—Nay, that the whole body of Christ exists in eyery particle of the bread, and in every particle of the wine: and there is a conversion of substance, which is aptly (propriè) called Trausubstantiation.— That the same worship of Latria is due to the consecrated elements, which is due to the true God. That processions are proper, as a triumph over Heresy, and to make it pine away, or be ashamed. That the custom of reserving, is ancient, and that of carrying the Sacrament to the /c, necessary, That the proper prepara- tion for receiving is sacramental Confession. — The Anathemas are eleven, the second against Con- substantiation.

The Catechism has the same things; with rea- sons; and some things more minute, The Sacra- ment is to be taken fasting. The bread ought to be wheat; it ought to be unleavened, but may be leavened.—“ The Church of God always mingled water with the wine ;” for seyeral © weighty” rea- sons; so that such mixture * may not be neglected under mortal fin.” The Eucharist is to be judged. of „by Faith, not by sense.“ Our senses tell us e nothing at all but the Species of bread and wine.” & They will judge that there is only bread and wine in the Sacrament.” One may see indeed all the accidents of bread and wine, which yet are inherent in no substance”—(what would Mr. Locke ay 7

this!

BOOK Iv. ART. XXVIII. SECT, x. 327

this?) “ but they consist of themselves.” “ We are not too narrowly to inquire into Transubstan- tiation.” —If the Romanists had been “ seen to eat” their © Lord under his own Species,” they could not easily have avoided the © reproach of Infidels,” as feeding upon human flesh and blood, « the most horrid thing in the world!”

Though these things were settled by the Coun- ci], yet we mult not conceive that they were settled without debate or dissension: The Cordeliers and the Jacobius were opposed in their methods of solving the bodily * presence.

The Festival of Corpus Christi or the Holy Sacra- ment is {aid to have been founded on a Revelation, which one Juliana, a devout woman of Leige, de- dared she had received. Her pretensions were supported by the Bishop, (in 1264) and afterwards by Pope Urban IV. and, in 1311, by Clement V. — The Festival is to be looked upon as in fact, the cause of Transubstantiation, as a settled and popular Doctrine. It seems to be held the Thurs- day after Trinity-Sunday :—Ir is sometimes called Fete de Dien. |

Dupin® is willing to give up the word tran- substantiation; but till it must be professed, «that the Bread and wine are really changed into the body and blood of Christ,” &c. The word /u6- stance is dropped. | After the Romanists, let us look at the Re- formed churches. — Luther’s opinion of the presence

of

Voltaire, Vol. 10, 4to. page 156.— Du Concile de Trente. Probably from Fra. Paolo. (alias Sarpi). | 8 Mosheim, Cent. 13. Part 2. Chap. 4. Sect. 2. octavo, Vol. 3. Page 108, * : Append. to Mosheim, | i I mean here all those Churches which separated from Rome

Abroad, those Churches are called reformed, which separated | * from

328 BOOK IV. ART, XXVIII. SECT. x.

of Christ in the Eucharist was mentioned just now;

as well as the separation occasioned by his persist ing in it. This separation consists of a number of particulars; but it may suffice for us to be aware, that the great opponent to Luther, was Zuingle, who formed the Churches in Switzerland; and afterwards, Calvin, Zuingle looked upon the Sacramental Bread and Wine as only Ss ons and symbols*; but it does not appear to me, that he did not look on the sacrament as a commemoration of a sacrifice —The greatest difficulty arises from the History of Melanhon, about whom we are interested as the divine on whose judzment very great reliance was placed in the forming of our own Articles. The truth may be, that, as he was of a very mild temper, and a singular lover of peace, and as he had sense enough to see, that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, is a thing in- rirely above human comprehension, and one “that does not immediately affect practice, or virtue, he might speak undecidedly, and endeavour to pacify each of the contending parties, as much as pol- sible, by respectful att tention and candour.— He was connefted with Luther, and in conference appeared as one of his company; and lie is some- times said to have been of his opinion; but some- times he is said to have though t differently from him: I mean on the subject now before us *. lt is

certain,

from the Lutherans, under Zuingle, Calvin, &c.—See Mosheim, Index, or Vol 4, B8vo. page 54. 62. And, if J mistake not, they are sometimes all together called C water,

k Mosheim, Cent. xvi. Sect. 3. part 2. 2. 4. - Also Cent. xvi. Sect. 1. Chap. 2. Sect. 2 1. And compare he Helvetic Contel- sion, page 71, with that of Wittemberg, page g59.

| At Marpurg, in 1529. —Molheim, Cent. 16. 1. 2. 28.— Also Cent. 16. Sect. 3. Part 2. 2. 4. note (y).

m Compare Mosheim, Cent. 16, 3. 2. 1. 27. with Mac- laine’s Note (r).

BOOK IV. ART. xxvVI II. SECT. XI. 329

certain, that the confession of Augsburg, which, was drawn by him, favours Contubstantiation® ; but in that Confession he 1s thought to have com- plied too much for the sake of peace. From what has been said, we know what to expect in the Confessions of the Reformed, Corporal presence is the most fully professed in that of Wittembergè, and the most avoided in that of the Helvetic Churches.—The opprobrious name given to those who denied the corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist, was that of Sacramentarians?, or Sacramentaries.

xi. Let us now come to our own Country, — In the reign of Henry VIII. very great stress was laid upon the corporal presence; nay, several people suffered dea/k for opposing it. Cranmer was, at that time, a Lutheran, and the King himself raged against Sacramentaries. In 1539 the act was passed which made a kind of regress of the Reformation; it was called, The Statute of the fix Articles, the first Article affirmed the corporal * pre- sence; and if any persons preached or wrote against it, they were to be burnt, and their estates for- seited. In 1543 the © Necessary Doctrine,“ &c. was published; it maintains, in conformity to the statute, the Law of the Land, that in the“ most high sacrament of the Altar,” the bread and wine are „turned to the very sub/ance of the body and blood of our Saviour Jesu Christ.“ Yet when we

| have

n Syntagma, page 14. c. 5 |

o Naam, page 159. for Helvetic, page 71. 73.

? Neal’s Hist. Pur. Vol. 1. page 20. 4to. A. D. 1538.— Mosheim, Vol. 4, 8yo. page 87. Maclaine’s Note.

3 Cranmer’s progression was the natural one; giving up Tran- substantiation he kept some belief of corporal presence: giving

up that, as untenable, he became a Sacramentarian.— He was

famous for resisting, in Parliament, the statute of the /ix Articles : lee his Life by Strype.

Neal, A. D. 1539.

330 BOOK Iv. ART, XXVIII. SECT. xf.

have taken it, it “is not turned into our sub.

fIance:” there are several other things mentioned, but they are only popish; and therefore they have occurred already: As, that the sacrament is to be received fasting, &c.— But when a church, which had been trying to reform, could accept or retain the Doctrine of Transubstantiation, we need not wonder at its retaining anything elle *.

In the beginning of the reign of Edward VI. it is not so ealy to give an account of the doctrine of the English Church. In his Firf Book, (that is, of Common Prayer) the Wafer is continued”, only it is to be so large that it may be broken; but “men mult not think less to be received in part than in the whole; but in each of them the whole body of our Saviour Jesus Christ.”

Afterwards both Transulstautiation and all ways of bodily presence, seem to have been decidedly rejected: this appears from our Article of 1552, and from the Retormatio Legum. |

In the Reformatio Legum we find a pretty long chapter against both Transubstantiation and Con- {ubstantiation, and against corporal presence in general. The expressions are much the fame with those of the Article of 1552. We also find a Chapter“ against wbquity; saying, that Christ, in his divine nature, might be every where (abique) even after his resurrection; but that in his kumar nature he could not : his body, if human, must be in some one place at one time: this chapter allo agrees exactly with our Article of 1552.

Latimer,

»The profaneness of the Auabaptists, mentioned in Art. xx v. Sect. 11. might be here recollected. Indeed it would have suited our present Article full as well as that about Sacraments in general.

; © Wheatly, page 332. A. D. 1548. the second Book was n 1552. u De Hæresibus, cap. 19, * De Summa Triaitate, cap. 4

Book IV. xXt. 331

Latimer, in the Disputation at Oxford in 1 3545 (or in the Paper which he gave in,) said, that he maintained the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but not the corporal presence. (See Fox, or Collier, A. D. 1554). Archbishop Secker, (Lect. Vol. 2. page 251.) says, the Church has always acknowledged the real presence. Yet Wheatly, (page 320.) says, it (real, essential pre- sence of Christ’s natural flesh and blood,) was not allowed at first, in the time of Fdward VI. it seemed to approach fo near Transubstantiation. —Fulke on Heb. 1. 6. denies reality of Christ’s corporal presence. |

Queen Elizabeth seems to have been willing to comprehend as many as possible in the new English Church ; and with that view to have endeavoured to use a language, which all might adopt, who did not profels Transubstanuation? in the strictest sense, and which might nevertheless be used by those who did not admit any presence of Christ in the Eucharist perfectly corporal. Such language would comprehend all Lutherans, and some Papifts*. I think this remark will be sufficient to account for the change of the expressions in the twenty-eighth of our present Articles; (on which Bishop Burnet speaks judiciously) and for the language in the second Book of Homilies; both as to the word “ Incorporation®,” and the insisting on Faith and spiritual eating of the Sacrament.

There

Y See Wheatly, end of Communion office. Mosheim, Vol. 4. 8vo. page 37. or, Cent. 16. 3. 2. 1. 27.

z See Sect. x1,—See also Mosheim, Cent. 16. 3. 2. 2. 6, or page 70, 71, 8vo. Vol. 4.

• Homily : on worthy receiving of the Sacrament, Page 350, Bvo. and 351. The language now is very like Calvin’s; sez Institutes, 4. 17. 32. Incorporate,” occurs in the next prayer

ps before

There was published, in Latin, in the year 1560, a very short ofice for a Communion at Funerals, if the friends and neighbours of the deceased? chose to attend. The Collect is the last Prayer in our burial-service; „O merciful God,” &c.—And there is an Epistle, and a choice of two Gospels. I suppose the rest would be taken from the Communion-service; beginning, probably, at the Lord’s Prayer. — Indeed if the Priest began there, some Collect, Epistle and Gospel would be wanting.

Of the Familifts, we said enough under the twenty-fifth Article; and fo of the Soctuians : and in general of those, who, near the time of the Reformation, spoke of the facraments in general as mere sigus of unity amongst Christians l doubt how near those moderns come to them, who make the Lord’s Supper a mere Commemoration.

The chief part of the Doctrine of the Quakers, with regard to the Lord’s Supper, seems to be this; they look upon what was done by Christ in the institution, as a shadow, intended to vanish, or cease ; the 8 being internale, and intended to remain. — Col. 11. 16, 17. applied to the Lord’s Supper, might e their mind. — This doctrine 15 generally, I believe, considered as invented in the last century; but those Petrobrussiaus, who were just mentioned before, seem to have been Popish Quakers, as it were, in the eleventh Cen- tury, when Transubstantiation was taken for granted. Their preachers said, that. the Clergy deceived the People notoriously; for the Body

of

before Gloria in excelsis. Alluding to 1 Cor. xii. 27, and parallels. d Sparrow’s collection, page 200. < Barclay’s Apology, prop. 13. 4 Art. XXV111, Sect, xiv.

BOOK Iv. ART. xxVIII. SECT, XVII. 333

of Christ was only once made, by himself, at the supper before his Pashon*: and was once only, viz. at that time, given to his Disciples. Since that time 1t was never made by any one, nor given to any one.”

In Wesley’s* Letters we have an account of the notions of the mystics; they need not © the Lord’s Supper, for they never cease to remember Christ in the most acceptable manner.“ Love is your end.” © Different men are led in different ways” (to Love): * You must judge for yourself. Per- haps fasting may help you for a time, and perhaps the holy Communion.”

X11. Those whom we commonly call Disen- ters, in England, /t at the table on which the Lord’s Supper 1s celebrated. The Minister pre- sides, according to the Diredtorys, breaks the bread, with prayer and benediction, and gives it to some one, but not to every one: and fo of the Cup. — The ceremony may be grave, decent, and edifying, for anything I see.— Dr. Priestley men- tions* a Mr. Henry, whole treatise on the Sacra- ment is much read, and he refers to a chapter, intitled, ** Sights 70 be seen at the Lord’s Table,” — This Title has a mystical sound, and Dr. Prieftley says, that experiences are sometimes examined into before admission to the Sacrament.

The Baptists also receive the Sacraments fitting

« at a common table,” and handing the Ele- ments* one to another.”

X111, Early

• Wall, end of Chap. 7. Part 2,

Page 60. 62. 13th Letter. |

See Directory; and Preface to Grey’s Hudibras. I have been told, that one kind of Dissenters will receive a Teacher or Pastor, from another kind; but will not it down with him: that is, will not receive the Sacrament with him.

Free Address, page 53

i See Wall, Part 2. Chap. 8. page 446, 4to.

334 BOOK iv. XII Xxx.

x111. Early in this eighteenth Century Bishop Hoadley contended, that the Lord’s Supper is a

bare memorial of the Death of Christ. Bishop Warburton, that it is a fea/t on @ sacrifice. This last seems the most approved opinion, and is ably detended* by Bisiop Cleaver. Dr. Balguy’s seventh Charge amounts to the same thing. But if Bisho

Hoadley looked upon the Death of Christ as a sacrifice, a memorial of his death, considered 71 that light, would not perhaps differ materially from a Feast on a sacrifice; where no real sacrifice is performed“: and would agree with the expressions of our® Catechism. —Nay, when the modern Soci- mans make the Sacrament a bare memorial of Christ’s death, and throw out all notion of a sacrifice, I do not regard the difference as one be- longing to the Sacrament; but to the nature and efficacy of the Death of Christ, or the doctrine of Atonement, Each party commemorates the Death of Christ as what he imagines it be.

xiv. We next come to the Explanation.

The Title is taken from 1 Cor. xi. 20. The Article consists of four Paragraphs.

xv. The first thing it does is, to affirm, of the Lord’s Supper in particular, what was before affirmed of Sacraments in general, that it is not a mere badge. Let it is a Badge; and the way in which it is a badge, is by denoting Christian social kindness, such as would be shewn by an Agape, or feast of Charity, which meant only to bring

thole

& Two Sermons, Oxford, 1589. — Warburton’s Sermon is called a Rational account, &c, — Hoadley’s a Plain account, &c.

i Maclaine thinks, that Bp. Hoadley’s notion is the same with that of Zuingle. Mosheim, Vol. 3. 8vo. page 331. or Cent. 16, 1. 2. 21. Note (a). Had they the same notion of the death of Christ as a sicrisice:

m « For the continual remembrance (memorial) of the Sacri- Ace of the Death of Christ,” &c,

BOOK IV. ART. XXVII1. SECT. xvIi—-XxVIII. 335

those of the same community together, in a way likely to produce chearfulness, good humour, and benevolence. The Lord’s Supper used to be called the Sacrament of Peace and Clarity: (Trent Cat, page 1 59. bottom.)

XVI. But […] does not exclude the notion of a Badge, but only de- clares the Lord’s Supper to be something more; to have, as a Sacrament, not only an external, but an internal part.

xVI1. © A Sacrament of our Redemption by Christ’s Death.” In Art. xxtx. those who take the Lord’s Supper, are said to © eat and drink the sign or Sacrament of fo great a thing” (as the body and blood of Christ.) From this comparison it appears, that * Sacrament,” in our Article, means much the same as sign;” which agrees with the account before® given of the molt literal or proper signification of the word Sacrament. Redemption was explained in the Appendix to the eleventh Article“. The Lord’s Supper then is an emble- matical representation of our being redeemed from spiritual evil, or bondage, by the Death of Christ : but in what way has the Death of Christ any efficacy to free us from spiritual evil? by being a sacrifice :- (that it was a sacrifice, has been proved before v:) therefore the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice- feast; or a feast upon a sacrifice: in some respects a paschal supper.

XVI11. If this be understood, all the rest follows naturally; as is implied by, [nsomuck that :” In all such Feasts there was a Communion, that is, a Communication, or a partaking in common, (in common with the gue/s; in common, in some fort, with

the ® Art, xx v. Sect. 11. o App. to Art. xt. Sect. xv11.

? Append, to Art. x1. Sect. x iv. XX11, XXVII. XxkXXVVIII. 1 Dr, Balguy, page 312.

the Being to whom the sacrifice was offered“) of all the benefirs at which sacrifice aimed; as pardon, favour, thanksgiving.—Should not this be satisfac- tory, the remainder of our paragraph is a proof of it, from scripture; expressing indeed, at the same time, what might always be a tacit condition, the worthiness of the receiver: that he who partakes, must not be wholly unworthy, is so-plain, that the Scripture, may, at any time, take it for granted; we shall have occasion to speak of it under the next Article. The passage introduced, in proof or confirmation, is 1 Cor. x. 16. the word in the English Article is partaking, but in the Latin Article it is communicatio; which is Latin for either partaking, or communion; that is, partaking ir common: Communion is the word in our English Bible. In the Vulgate there is first communucatio and then participatio ; these must have the same meaning, the Greek wo them both being owe *, — To be sure, a single, unconnected sentence of Scripture in an Article, would make a kind of identical proposition ; for in every Article we mean only, that each thing affirmed can be proved by scripture ; and therefore when the thing affirmed is icself scripture, we say, in effect, scripture may be proved by {scripture : = However, in difficult sub- jets, we had perhaps most of us rather subscribe to a sentence of scripture than to an human inter- pretation of it. And a sentence of Scripture may reasonably be introduced, to confirm something elle which is not Scripture. But let us now come to the second paragraph. |

XIX. © Transub-

= Damascene has both these connexions, Trent. Cat. Sect. 5. or page 195.

5 I am not sure that the scope of this reasoning will be im- mediately perceived, except the reader finds, that the con- cluding expressions of the first paragraph of the article, might, without it, give too little feeling of a /ecial partaking.

BOOK Iv. ART. xxvIII. SECT. XIX; xx. 33 x1x. © Transubstantiation” was explained in the History, It “cannot be proved by Holy writz”—this expression will occasion what may be called indirect proof; that is, answering the arguments of the Romanists, which to our doc- trines, are objections. But that which follows will bring on direct proof; it “ is repugnant to the plain words of scripture.” —© plain words” —all ficies talk of plain words: we will only observe, that some words are more plain when used meta- phorically, than literally: as, a Plagiary, in Eng- lish; pravus, in Latin; Saifisement*, in French.

« Overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament” — by confounding the outward and visible sign, with the © inward and spiritual Grace:”—the figure, with the thing figured®. Transubstantiation makes the bread (the sign) to be allo the Body of Christ, (the thing signified).— Explanation here, is proof. :

The * superstitions” to which this doctrine hath given occasion, were mentioned in the His- tory*; and no farther proot can be wanting, that the Doctrine * hath given occasion to many super- stitions.“

xx. The third paragraph is not more easy to ex- plain than that in whose room it was substituted.— It mentions only the Body of Christ; but that is for the sake of simplicity and perspicuity. 1 2 7

al

t Di. Acad. says of saisissement “ il n’est pas en usage au . propre, mais seulment au figure. There are many such words. Candor is never used for whiteness. I never knew any sense of unwarrantable but the figurative, till a Keeper in a King’s Forest told me, certain Venison was unwarrantable; that is, could not be sent in return to the Warrants issued by the Officers of the Crown | | u Fulke on Rhem. Test. Luke xxii. Sec. 7.—Heb: 1. Sect. 1. * Set. ix. |

338 BOOK 1V. xx.

said of the Body may be extended to the Blood, by parity of reasoning. —-Let us, in order to explain it, read, in addition to what was read before“, John vi. 48—58.— And compare Heb. x. 5— 10. From these two scriptures, one may get some idea, how, by eating the facramental Bread, or Bread in a sacrifice-feast, one may be said to eat the Body of Christ. Whether John vi. relate to the Lord’s supper, has been disputed ; I think Bishop Cleaver proves, that it does as a prophetic intimation ; but we are sure that many people have so understood it; and so probably did they who compiled our Article“. In that chapter something is meant, which is not intended to be expressed with perfect clearness. It may, as a prophetic intimation, be interpreted by the Institution of the Sacrament, as an event; and by a comparison of Christ’s reason- ing in the sixth Chapter, about the Lord’s Supper, with his reasoning to Nicodemus in the third, about Baptism. The difficulty lies in giving a meaning to such expressions as that in our Cate- chism, © verily and indeed taken,” when used by those who reject both Transubstantiation and Con- substantiation; and deny, in general, the corporal presence of Christ in the Eucharist. It is a dif- ficulty which seems to have occasioned some un- steadiness of language, some expressions seemingly inconsistent in those, who have departed both from the Romish and the Lutheran Church“. My own

idea

Sect. 1.

z Bishop Cleaver says, that the Reformers were againsi apply- ing John vi. to the Sacrament, He excepts (in some degree) Cranmer. Two Sermons, page 25.

FBarclay observis this in his Apology, Prop. 13. Sect. 3 & 4. Reality (of Christ’s presence) seems to be the most unsteadily uled; sometimes with Body, sometimes without —See SeR. x.. about Latimer, &c. We cat Christ’s body really; we cannot

eat

BOOK IV. xx. 339

idea is this; when l fay, that, in the Lord’s Supper, the inward part, or thing signified, is, The Body and blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord’s Supper;” I mean, that, though I may not know precisely what may be intended in Scripture by our eating Christ’s Body arid drinking his bloud, yet I believe, that whatever is meant, a worthy receiver comes up to at meaning: he performs that action which 1s prelcribed ; he obtains that good which is annexed to it. If this be admitted, great /atizude is allowed, when scripture speaks of eating the Flesh of Christ and drinking his blood, to different notions, and conceptions, or imaginations about particular #2eans z or intermediate steps: and in things above reason why should latitude be denied? One man thinks, that eating Christ’s flesh and drinking his blood, means only a bare commemoration of his death : another thinks, it is emblematically accepting the benefits of the Christian sacrifice : a thi d thinks, that it is eating, in some inexplicable way, the substance of Christ’s Body, into which the Bread has been changed: a fourth, that it 1s eating the subRance of Christ’s body along with the sacramental bread. These are but different fanctes or conjec- tures of men about the particular means of bringing about what is called in Scripture ® eating the flesh of Christ : still therefore 1 say, whichever of these is | right,

eat that really which is not pre/ent; thus men seem to have been led to acknowledge the real presence, even of Christ’s body; though they deny the corporal preience. ;

d The Romanists and Lutuerans would not deny, either that eating Christ’s Body 1s a commemoration, Or a partaking of the benefits of a Sacrifice; nor should we Calvinists; but still, every

thing between tne precept © take eat,” and the «bedience to it (including the reward, or benefit), is human. |

— KKK nz ñ c 22

340 BOOK tv. ART. XxXVIII. SECT. xx.

right, or if none of them be right, the worthy communicant, does that which is really meant in scripture by eating the flesh of Christ, and drink- ing his blood; and he gains all the benefit which God intended should arise from such eating and drinking. He does that which God hath com- manded; and he obtains that which God doth promise. |

I could wish any one, who enters into what [ have said, to try whether the paragraph before us, would exclude the Lutheran, or even the Romanif, The Romanist, who profefled Transubstantiation in the strictest sense, could not subscribe to the preceding paragraph; but would he not own that even /is eating the Body of Christ is a /piritual* eating? he does not mean to satisfy his hunger; and he professes, that what he eats does not ix“ with his bodily substance. And as to Faith, he professes that © we must judge of the Eucharist by © Faith;” nay, in the form of consecration he calls it “ he mystery of Faith.” And as all must own, that the

eating of the flesh of Christ is a spiritual and not

a carnal * eating, all must likewise own, that Faith is more properly the instrument, than the Jaw is. The Trent Catechism says, © what food is to the Body, that the Eucharist is to the® Spirit.“ Roma- nifts speak of Faith chiefly with a view to their

incredible

It is called * our Hpiritual meat,” Trent Catech. Sect. 5. or page 196 — Spiritual eating is distinguished from /acramental eating, and both are required. Council, Sess. 13. Cap. 7 and Canon 8. but sacramental eating is not ordinary eating.

4 Frent Catechism, Sect. 40, or page 220, bottom. — Sect. x1. of this Article. This might be held, in order to obviate the

[…]

Trent Catech. Sect. 23, 24 or page 206, 207. D Panis cibus mentis est, non cibus ventris.— Cy pr. See Synt. page 121. | s Sect. 49. page 220.

BOOK IV, ART. xxvII I. SECT. XX; 341

incredible conversion of bread into Flesh; we, of Christian Faith in general ; ys they sometimes use it in our sense.

When I think in this train, and consider how transcendent and astonisning a thing the Eucha- rist must, on any supposition, appear to one who fixes his thoughts fairly upon it; how solemn and affecting the first Institution, especially when open - ing the sense of the prophetic intimation recorded by St. John; how strong the declarations of the necessity of cating the Flesh of Christ and drink- ing his blood: 1 seem to be in the place of those persons of our“ persuasion, who have scarcely known how to express themselves, so as to deny the corporal presence of Christ, and yet not let down the Ordinance, nor give the Romanists and Lutherans a pretence for charging them with want of veneration for it. I feel inclined to use the same expressions, though sensible of the same dif- ficulties. Though their expressions seem to vary, yet they always speak so as to be consistent with my idea just now stated : they may always mean, by receiving really the Body and Blood of Christ, receiving the Sacrament according to the real mean- ing of Scripture, be that what it will: in oppo/iriore to, mere bread, vain ceremonies, empty signs, un- feeling formality. They are ail words explaining by opposition, or attempting to give the force of {cripture.

As I doubt not but the high and strong ex- pressions which those of our persuasion use, have given offence or disgust, or caused perplexity, to many, and made them prefer Popery, Socinianism, or

n J include, in this case, the Calvinists, and all who have departed from the Romish and Lutheran churches; (except Socinians and Quakers, &c.)

3 — * r e […] N

0 „ ö

or Quakerism; I will refer to some places where they are used ; in hopes that, in the light in which I have placed then., they may be thought natural, and such as arise from right notions and feelings, I will, at the same. time, refer to some passages in which our idea of the Lord’s Supper is illustrated by opposition and* contradistinftion. Dr. Balguy defends . verily and indeed,” by the context.

XX1, The practices mentioned in the fourth paragraph have been explained in the History. — The expreshon * By Chri/”s ordinance,” may be observed, because by the ordinance of fome ancient churches, fore elements were* reserved, Bishop Burnet accounts for their being so! : circumstances, at some times required it ; but ancient churches did not reserve their God in any sacrarium, nor expose him to the inroads of mice; for they did not believe in Transubstantiation. Nor does it seem as if they had encouraged superstitions.— Generally speaking, they considered circumstances; they lest off carrying the sacrament to the sick, because of some abuses, and so of the Agapæ: and I doubt not but anything, not quite essential,

would

1 See the prayer preceding the prayer of Consecratico.— And Reformatio Legum, de Hzrefibus, cap. 19. - Maclaine’s Note, or Mosheim, Cent. 16. 3. 2. 2. 12. (and 6.)—Calvin’s Institutes, 4. 17. 32. and Barclay’s mention of it, Apol. 13. 3, 4. —Fox’s Acts and Monuments (or Martyrology), Vol. 3. page 82. col. 2. disp. in April 1554, at Oxford. —Syntagma page 120, part of the English Confession, from Bishop Jewell. — Fulke on the Rhemish Testament, fol. 1<2. (comp. on Heb. i. b )—Hemily on the worthy receiving of the Sacrament, Part :ft. (every word must be attended to, in some places:) incorperation occurs twice (John vi. 56.) the latter t me nearthe end. The scriptural Metaphors of Head and Members (<* incorporation”) vine and branches, &c. are well introduced. This is the roth Homily of the 2d book, or the 25th of the whole number. Dr. Ba/gzy’s 7th charge would illustrate the Article, if the expressions were carefully compared,

• Sect. v. Page 429. 8vo.

BOOK IV. ART. xxVItI. SECT, XXI1T=XXIV. 343

would have been left off, if it had given occasion to superstitions or scandals. But we are only ex- plaining, the expression, © by Christ’s Ordinance.”

Xx11. Come we now to our Proof. -

The Article seems to contain fx propositions.

1. The Lord’s Supper has an external part, or Sign.

2. It has an internal part, or “ spiritual Grace,” that is, it denotes or represents our redemption by the death of Christ.

3. Transubstantiation cannot be proved by Holy Writ, .

4. It is repugnant to Scripture,

5. The Body of Christ is, in the Lord’s Supper, eaten spiritually ; by Faith.

6. Christ has not ordained that the Sacrament under consideration, should be reserved, carried about, elevated, or adored,

XXI111., That the Sacrament of the Lord’s supper has an external part, is sufficiently proved by the 7fizution. — Matt. xxvi. 26.—Mark xiv. 22. Luke xxii. 19.—1 Cor. xi. 23. with the prac- tice mentioned 1 Cor. x. 16. made perpetual, 1 Cor. xt. 26.— What better proof could be re- quired ? | This external part of the Ordinance being visi- ble, and peculiar to Christians, must be a Badge. And whatever is a badge of Christians must be a sign of mutual affectien: see John xi. 35.— 1 Cor. x. 17. mutual love must also result from what is urged 1 Cor. xil. 13.

xXxIv. The Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, denotes, or represents, our Redemption by the Death of Christ: and so has an internal part, or « spiritual Grace.” |

If it be intended to commemorate Christ’s Death, and his death. be a Sacrifice for the _ Y 4 *

— —ͤ̃ —-—-—

344 BOOK IV. ART, xXxVIII. SECT, XXIV.

of the world, it must be an application to one’s self of the benefits of such sacrifice. —That it is intended to commemorate Christ’s Deat/, appears from the Body broken, the blood shed, and from 1 Cor. xi. 26.—And allo from 1 Cor. x. 16. In the institution also we are told, that Christ’s blood was shed for us, and for the remishon of Sins: these things are there connected with the Lord’s Supper; and we are told ol a 9iabnun, sometimes translated 7-fament®, sometimes covenant, in the blood ot Christ; which being the word used for the O Covenant, (Deut. iv. 14.—Exod. xxiv. 8.) implies, at least, some great benefit, arising from the sheuc1i.z of the blood of Christ. Which is confirmed by iTeb. vin. 8, &c.—And it is said, that diabnun, and the Hebrew Ya, are con- nected with sacrificing « because, it is thought, solemn leagues and contracts uied to be scaled, as it were, by 1acrifices,— But I see nothing about sacrificing in Henry Stephens’s accout of Alabnen, or dr7hnps, &c. for this, consult Parkhurst under NA .nci. diabnun. Poster (Antiq. Vol. 1. page 252.) mentions sacriticcs at solemn covenants. If we allow that John vi. rel.tes to the Lord’s Supper, the benefits of it must be endless. And all wirtnes

naturally

mn Hl LL. is to dispose; in various ways; by Will; Christ might be conceived as both Testator (or Dispenser, author of a Dispensation,) and Vifim : different characters, as well as different types meet in him: perhaps we do not see the full

force of 3:abnxy and %abepay, Heb. ix. 16. it we have not

these differ: nt ideas in mind.

But what led our “Translators to use Testament for Nabnan! perhaps Jie: Ala hnÆA is classical for a Vill, (as a mode of dispojal); but the Lxx always use it for FAQ, as fe dus; Aquila puts owbnxr, a compact. — Christians use Testament and Covenant promiscucusiy; so that Testamentum in scripture often means pactum wiventum (Stephens Greek Lex.) God covenants

with those who are called his inheritance ; vet God’s covenants are gifts, dispensations.

naturally resulting from a worthy receiving, make a fort of the ** spiritual” Grace.“

xxV. Trantubstantiation cannot be proved by Holy Writ. This must be deterred to the in- direct proof, for the reason mentioned in the Explanation,

xxV1. Transubstantiation is repronant to scrip- ture. The Jews did not use b/ood lor any fort of victuals; and the scriptures have made fome fsup- pole, that C/7i/tians ought not. It is not therefore likely that Christ should mean drinking his blood in a /iteral sense. Christ calls the wine the fruit of the vine alter consecration, Matt. xxvi. 29. In John vi. Christ ascribes the fame effects to cating Bread of Life, and to eating bis Fleh: and the Papists own John vi. to belong“ to the Sacrament : Christ’s body may therefore as properly be bread, as Hes%; but eating the bread of Life, and eating Christ’s fe/h, rust be both proper, or both figura- tive expressions: they cannot be both literal, there- sore they are both figurative. Acts iii. 21. excludes any corporal pretence of Christ in the Eucharist, which can properly be called such. 1 Cor. xi. 26. ill he come,” shews, that Christ is not come in the Sacrament : this last was Bilhop Ridley’s argu- ment in the day of his trial : more may be found in Fox’s account of the Disputation at Oxford in 1554, and that at Cambridge in 1549.

XXVII. The Body of Christ is, in the Lord’s Supper, eaten spiritually, by Faith. The argu- ments just now used mult tend to prove this; tlie

Body

” See of Sacraments in general, Art. xxv. Sect. 11. Our Homily calls these virtues Graces, and describes them well: if graces, they must be Hir itual graces, (page 350, bottom, and 351, top) they cannot be corporeal.

• Khenusts on John vi. 53.

346 BOOK Iv. ART xxvIII. SECT. XXVI II.

Body of Christ, in the Eucharist, is eaten in /ome sense; if not really, it must be spiritually.

After what was said in the Explanation, about the paragraph from which this proposition is taken, it seems almost needless to give a proof of it.— Every emblematical ordinance (or Sacrament) must be executed by Faith.—John vi. 35. is a Key to the whole discourse. - And the gross, carnal notion of the inhabitants of Capernaum in ver. 52. with the reception of it by Christ, shews, that carnal eating could not be meant.

XXVIIJs, Christ has not ordained that the Sacrament called the Lord’s Supper should be reserved, carried about, elevated, or adored.— It rests upon our adversaries to prove that Christ has ordained these things; if they offer any a1guments worthy of your consideration, they must appear under our indirect proof. — The words “ take, eat;” —* as often as ye eat this bread,” &c.—seem to prove the Romish superstitions here mentioned, to be even repugnant to Scripture : as they seem to prove the design of Scripture to be, that the sacred Bread should be eaten: eating it would cut off the rest, Besides, all the four practices here men- tioned are grounded on Transubstantiation; that being disproved, these are disproved by con-

uence,

I may close this direct proof with a passage from Dr. Middleton’s Preface to his Letter from Rome; page Ixxv. &c.— He says, that it was too absurd a thing even for Heathens, to worship that which they? eat. Yet in fact, the elevation of the Host is so striking a ceremony, and so affecting to the devout, through the help of sympathy ; besides pomp, shew, music, sometimes military ah | an

P Referring to Cic. de Nat, Deer. Lib. 3. 16.

BOOK iv.

and a present* Deity,” that calm reason seems unable to abolish it.

xx1x, Having finished our direct proof, we must see what indirect may be wanted: Or what

obectious there are, which it may be worth our while to coniider.

Thole of the Quaker come first in our way. The chief of what they urge seems to turn upon this if we make a perpetual Sacrament of break- ing bread, why do we not make a perpetual Pedi. Iavium, or washing of feet? one is as much injoined as the other. — This was mentioned in the eleventh | Chapter of our first Book*, - Pedilavium is a cere- mony in the Greek* Church; and the Pope, I think, coes through the ceremony of washing some peo- ple’s feet. But let any one compare the institution _ of the Lord’s Supper, with John xiii. 14. and the general importance of the Lord’s Supper, with that of the other ceremony, only mentioned by one Evan- gelist; let him compare the customs in Judea, of travelling, &c. with those in our own country; let him compare the practice upon the one ceremony, with that upon the other; and he will find many rea- sons for establishing the rite of the Lord’s Supper, which will not apply to the washing of feet. — This was once a Sacram ent, and may now be called so b the Greek Christians. in the extensive sense of the word ; but the five Popish Sacraments which we reject, seem more important than this, and more adapted to general use; yet they fall much below our two Sacraments. Our Saviour’s washing his | Disciples, was probably only emblematical teaching ; it was indeed followed by a verbal precept, (John X111, 14.) but that might be only the explanation of the action; or the moral of the Parable. —After

all, 2 Dryden’s Ode on St. Cecil’a’s Day.

7 Buok 1. Chap xi. Se& vi. The Lord’s Supper is Se. vit. 5 Cave, Diss. 2. NimTn;.

—

all, if our reasons seem to any one insufficient, let him imitate our Lord; he will do no harm. If the ceremonies must be adopted or rejected to- gether, it is a much less evil to adopt the Nivea, than to reject the Eucharist.

xxx. It may be objected, that the Gospel- Institutions are not to be made complicated and abstruse unnecessarily. Is not the © Simplicity that is* in Christ,” best observed, by taking the Sacra- ment of the Lord’s Supper as a mere conimemora- tion? Bishop Cleaver answers this objection in his first discourse; and Dr. Balguy answers it, in effect, in his seventh Charge. It you make the Lord’s Supper, as It was instituted by Christ, a mere commemoration, you make it a strange and unin- telligible rite : for what can be more“ strange than eating the flesh and drinking the blood of one, who is to be regarded only as an instructor and bene- factor? if we had been ordered, in the Sacrament, to kill an animal, and shed its blood; or only to break bread, and pour out wine; the rite would have been intelligible, as a simple memorial; it would have reprelented Christ’s Death, merely as a death; but it would have been a different rite from ours. Now conceive it as a feast on a sacri- ice, and all is easy and simple. We indeed are not in the habit of sacrificing; but what is that? who could not understand, that when sacrifices were in ule, part of the victim was served up at a religious feast ; and all who partook* of the material

3 least

t 2 Cor. xi. 3.—Sce Dr. Priestley’s expression before.

d Before, Sect. I. Dr. Balguy, page 30g.

x See Potter’s Antiquities, Vol. 1. page 145. which though about Heathens, is worth our notice. Heathens, deliberating about Christianity, must have had their minds full of ideas of heathen sacrifices. And these ideas must have affe ted both their conversion, and their Religion after conversion ; besides mak-

ing it easier to them to conceive and celebrate the Christian Sacrifice.

feast were understood to partake of the spiritual benefits of the sacrifice?, + Christ was our victim; on his body we do not feast literally, because it is in Heaven; but he appointed bread to represent it; on that we can feast, and so partake of his Body; that is, feast upon the victim. Such bread is * the Bread of Life,” because, by his own ap- pointment, it represents his Fl. This appears to me plain and /mple.

xxxI, Woe must now take some notice how the Romanists prove Transub/lantiation from scripture. They have several weak arguments which, as I said in the case of Purgatory and Invocation of Saints, it would be no Improvement to consider. Such as John ii. 9. the transubstantiating of water into wine ; (it did not, after the change, appear to be water); and 1 Cor. xi. 29. not discerning the Lord’s Body; by which St. Paul means, not making a religious meal of the Lord’s Supper, but a profane one; and that with excess and intemperance, with violation of the rules of * sobriety. —Their chief ar- gument lies in the words, © his is my* body;” plain words, as they contend : Archdeacon Sharp rightly replies, yes, they are plain words, for they are a very plain figure*. Many exceptions may be | | taken

Y 1 Cor. x. 18. Are not they which eat of the Sacrifices, partakers of the Altar?” — Lardner, speaking of food, says, (Works, Vol. 11. page 332.) * The Worshipper, as well as the Priest, partook of the Altar, excepting in the case of whole burnt-offerings.“ 6d

z Suppose a large room, many Christians met; the rich making separate little parties, having a good supper and good wines; (a feast on an Heathen sacrifice was a jovial thing) : the poor obliged to mess as they could; feeling mortified and insulted by those, who Ought to be as their brethren, and-make with them one company, one party.—Small sele& parties of great persons in the midst of numbers, generally mortify, if not made by some useful Rule.

a Matt. xxvi. 26. |

d Sermon on the 1 preached at York Cathedral. Sect. x1x, of this Article,

350 BOOK Iv. xxxii.

taken to their being used in a literal sense; but ] {hall content myfelt with the context. If the bread, in the hand of Christ, was literally his Body, what was the Cup? © This cup ts the New*® Tess- tament in my blood.” —Was the Cup a Tefta- ment? was the Cup in Christ’s blood ? And if we may not take words figuratively, was Christ really and literally a Vine“ and a Door Alt seems odd, that the Papists should insist upon setting aside metaphor here, and yet understand Bread meta- phorically in John vi. 48. and 51.—For they do not allow that Bread is ever eaten in the

Sacrament’. | | XXX11. Our Article afhrms, that the Sacra- ment of the Lord’s Supper was not, by Christ’s Ordinance, reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped.” — We might therefore have arguments to examine on thele four points. But (besides that they must all be built upon Transubstantiation) I do not see any which are likely to detain us.— Something

Luke xx1. 20.

4 See Append. to Art. xz, Sea. xxv11.

• If I was a Papist I would fay thus ;— The passages in which Christians are ordered to eat the Flesh of Christ, are very strong ; they strike, amaze, almost terrify; I cannot wonder when devout people think, that, in some way or other, they ought to eat Christ’s Flesh: they have no way of doing it but in the Saerament, God must therefore contrive some way that they shall do it there: but how?—all things are possible with God: he could change the bread which we eat into Christ’s Body; surely then he does: he would not command things impossible. Thus I might argue if I was a Papist: as a candid Protestant J add, — This hypothesis might go down in an ignorant age; it might get associated with religion in general ; it might influ- ence the whole praxis of Religion, and therefore might become very difficult to extirpate. There might be an appearance that it could nyt be removed without a total overthrow of a great religious eflablishment; one splendid and opulent, nay, with- out total destruction of Christian principles in those who pro- fessed ĩt.

ROOK 1V. ART. xxVIII. SECT, XxX x/III. 351

Something is said by the Rhemifts*, of paying dis- tinguished honours to Christ’s Body, and of doing officious things similar to spreading garments in our Saviour’s way, when he entered Jerusalem in tri- umph : They also would make an application of those passages in which Chris is said to have been? adored, to the adoration of the Hoff : But see nothing urged by Romanists from Scripture, which relates to the peculiar nature of the ele- ments in the Lord’s Supper, after consecration. Here ends our Proof, direct and indirect. xxxIII. In regard to Application, I will only observe, that, on this Article, there seems great room for mutual concessions. But we have been already led to enter into these, in what was said of Queen Elizabeth, and in the explanation of the third paragraph. Queen Elizabeth seems to have followed a right plan, and Melan#hon® seems to have had the same idea with her Ministers. What can* seem more desperate, at first, than Dupin’s insisting on its being {till professed, “that the bread and wine are really changed into the Body and Blood of Christ?” Yet if that had been said by a protestant, and perhaps put in a shape a little different, we should have made no objection to it. Might not a Protestant Preacher, addressing that part of his congregation, who would attend the Communion, and exhorting them to pay due reverence to the sacred elements, say, that he who should eat of them now, would eat only

simple

’ Rhemists on Matt. xxi. 8,—— Mark xi. 8.—1 Cor. xi. 29.

[…]

bd Mosheim, 8vo. Vol. 4. page 37. or Cent. 16. 3. 2. 1. 27.

i Bishop Cleaver observes, that there are three notions of the Lord’s Supper, all allowing to it © what our Church considers as

essential to a Sacrament, an outward visible sign and an inward spiritual Grace,” 7

352 BOOK IV, ART. xxvIII. SECT. XXXIIT.

simple bread and wine; but that he who received them properly after consecration, would “ werily aud indeed*” receive © the Body and Blood of Christ ?” |

Ambrose has a similar expression, which the Papists would have us take in their sense, but J fully believe that it was meant in ours. I take it as IJ find it in the Trent! Catechism—* There is bread before the consecration, but after the con- secration, the Body of Christ.” Now, how could this be, if the Bread were not changed into Christ’s Body ? But suppose it was proposed to Dr. Dupin to say thus? The Bread, after consecration, is changed into what 1s meant in Scripture by, the Body of Christ: who could refuse his assent? and whole purpose would not this answer? —Some- thing of this fort might effect an agreement; but it is idle to use words, and, by limitations to take away their customary meaning. As words are arbitrary signs, they depend for their meaning on custom wholly. What signifies talking of a Body, not present as to Placex ? — That which is not present in such a sense as to occupy a place, is not Body, in human language. And fo that which is without the qualities, or accidents ®, of tubstances, is no substance : Man has no idea of

such

& Catechism, of Church of England.

! ‘Trent Cat. page 210; or Sett. 27. |

P. S. I have looked into Ambrose, Edit. Paris 1603 — The pissage appears page 366. tom 2. in his 4th Book and 4th Chapter De Sacramentis. The Books and Chapters are very sort, and the stile very deelamatory.— The subje& of the Chapter is. Christus est Autor Sacramentorum; the passage 15, Tu forte dicis : Meus panis est tatus. Sed panis iste panis est ante verba -acramentorum : ubt accesserit consecratio, de par? fit Caro Chri/.

in Trent Catech. page 218. or Sect 43,—Locke, Hum. Und, 2. 13. 11. |

» See Locke, Hum. Und. Book 2, Chap. 23. Sect. 2. & 4.

such a thing: nor could the notion have been admitted in any but an ignorant age“.

0 The Romanists are very tender about this, as one sees by their care to exclude senst from judging of transubstantiation; and their cautions about explaining it, and inquiring into it. (Trent Cat. Sect. 39. 41.—also 24.) What right has any human

being to set aside the judgment of the /en/e: ?

354 BOOK iv. ART. XXIX. SECT, I.