& 26.

the Bread of Affliction to the end of their Ceremony;) if this will not fa- T. p. 163. tisfy the Metufiafts, let them prove the Elements to be Tranfubftantiated, or that nothing remain of the Elements, but the Accidents, Again all this (the confecrating the Symbols and the Symbols themselves) is but part of the whole Ceremony of the Lord's Supper; the Elements, or Holy Food, thus Coniccrated and Prepared must be diftributed and received, or elle you cannot call this a perfect and compleat Supper; It must be eaten, as is plain from St. Paul, 1 Cor. 11. 20. when you come together this is not to Eat, (or you cannot Eat) the Lord's Supper, and again he fhews that without this Eating and Drinking, it is no Supper, no Commemoration; For as oft as ye Eat this Bread and Drink this Cup, ye do fhew (or fhew you) the Lord's Death till he come. This hewing the Lord's Death is certainly the Principal part of the Lord's Supper; How can the Confecrated Symbols alone exprefs that part, when there is no Eating and Drinking. How will they obey Chrift's words, take Eat? And the fame, in St. Paul's writing, is far from, take and keep it in a Box, or leathern Bag. The Greeks indeed, by flabbing the Loaf, may wildly repre- supr. p. 14. fent Christ's Death, but furely by it alone they do not Compleat his Supper. Again the Scripture calls this Commemoration of Chrift's Paffion properly nowwvía, the communion; The Cup of Bleffing which we Bless, is it not xavovía, 1 Cor. 10. 16. the Communion (or Communication) of the Blood of Chrift? The Bread vuig. Lat. which we Break, is it not the Communion (or Participation) of the Body of Chrift? But if the Cup be only Blessed, and not Communicated; if the Bread be only Confecrated and Broken, and not Participated; I cannot fee how this can be called Properly, the Communion, or Communication, or Participation, much lefs Compleatly and Perfectly. It is Impoffible to reconcile their Private Maffes with this Notion of Communion or Communication; what the Council of Trent fay in defence of it, feems, I confefs to me, far fhort of it; for thus we there read; "The holy Synod could wish that in every self. 22. c. 6. Mafs the Faithful, ftanding by, would Communicate not only by a Spiritual, Affection, but alfo by the Sacramental reception of the Eucharift; that great- p. 854. d. "er Fruit of this moft Holy Sacrifice might accrue to them thereby. Yet, if "that may not always be done, it does not therefore condemn thofe Maffes, "in which the Prieft only Communicates Sacramentally, as Private and Un- T. p. 164. "lawful; but approves of them and thereby recommends them. For even

thofe Maffes ought to be counted truly Common, partly because the People.

"in them may Communicate fpiritually; and partly becaufe they are Celebrated by a Publick Minifter of the Church, not only for himself, but for all the Faithful who belong to the Body of Chrift. First, this plainly makes the Spiritual Communion of the bystanders Sufficient to make every private

T. conc. 14.

Mafs Common or Publick; and by confequence (though Bellarmine charges De miff. 1 2. this as a flat lie upon Chemnitius) the Spiritual Communion of them must be c.9. p. 353. b. thought to fatisfy (at least in this cafe) Chrift's Inftitution; elfe why do they approve of it and recommend it upon this very account? Next if the Priest being a publick Minifter, and his Celebrating alone by himself, in behalf of all the Faithful, will make it a Common or Publick Mafs, what need the Faithful themfelves Communicate Sacramentally at all; The Priefts Celebrating and their Spiritual Affection only, will be fufficient. However both thefe confiderations will not (according to themselves) make the Communion perfect; private Maffes muft want fomething of Perfection, elfe why fhould the Synod wish that it was otherwife, and he in another Place acknowledges as much, De miffa. L 2. the Mafs is more Perfect and Legitimate, where there are Communicants. c. 10. p. 355. c. And if the Spiritual Affection of the People contribute fo much to the Compleating of the private Mafs, it cannot be Spiritual without Faith; and then Faith will have a great part alfo in making it Perfect. But the Confecrated Bread alone, faith Bellarmine, is truly and properly the Sacrament, though De Euch. 1. 4 it be not received; if fo, what need the Prieft himself Eat it, it is, according c. 2. p. 256. b. to him, the Perfect and compleat Sacrament without it, Eating it being not X

De miffa. 1.

2.

C. 10. H.

at

Mat. 26. 20.
T. p. 165.

De Euch. 1.

4.

T. p. 164 at all Effential to it. Now if the Sacrament of the Eucharift, and the
Communion be all one (as for my part I ever thought they were) they are
at this rate both Perfect and Compleat, before even the Prieft himself Eateth,
and fo his Eating is fuperfluous. And truly fince the Metufiafts have made
their Mafs, not to much a Spiritual Sacrifice of Devotion, as a True and
Real Sacrifice of Chrift's very Body, nay, of his whole Self, both of Body
and Blood and Soul (and Divinity too by Concomitancy) I wonder they
would trouble their Priefts with Eating or Drinking at it at all. For according
to them, the Priefts Effectually and Compleatly make and offer this Bodily
Sacrifice by only Confecrating the Elements, and fo it is a daily Sacrifice
offer'd for the Sins of the whole World, without the Peoples or the Priests
De missa. 1. 1. partaking of it, and yet this contradicts what he faith in another place, A
C.15.p.330.D. true Sacrifice is only made when what is offer'd to God is confumed; and
De miffa. . 2. fo this cannot be properly a Sacrifice till it be Eaten. And Bellarmine
c.10.p.353. d. feems directly to aim at this very thing; if we allow it, faith he, to be
a Sacrifice, it is all one if many, or few, or none are prefent, or Com-
municate; fince a Sacrifice is offer'd to God for the People; for the Priest
can offer for the People, although the People neither are there nor Commu-
nicate. He might have added, that the Lord's Supper was appointed only to
Marck 14. 17. the Twelve Apostles, and their Succeffors Bishops and Pricfts, and the Lay People
Luke 22. 14 had nothing do with it. And thus we might lay afide the empty Names of
Communion, and the Supper of the Lord. But what muft we fay then to
those words of our Saviour, do this in Remembrance of me. What is meant
by do this? Is it only, give Thanks, or Bless the Bread? Or is it, do all
the whole Action which you fee me do, Take, Bless, Break, Distribute, Eat
the Bread in Remembrance of me. He fhuffles this over, faying, these words
c. 3. p. 259. a. contain (only) the Ufe, not the Effence of the Sacrament; where plainly
he takes the word Sacrament (for only the Symbol) for only a Part of the
whole ceremonious Performance, as hath been fhewn. But this is most noto-
rioufly remarkable, that after all this ftickling for private Maffes, he should plain-
De mia. 1. 2. ly confels, that we can no where exprefly read that the Sacrifice (of the
c.9. p. 353. d. Lord's Supper) was offer'd by the Antients without one or more Communi-
cants befides the Prieft. One would think this a Sufficient Proof to fhew that
the prefent Practice of private Maffes, in the Church of Rome, is a meer Novel
Invention; But the Cardinal is fo loath to part with it, as he flies to a Compa-
ny of
Some ex-
very pittiful Conjectures or Gucffes of his own to fupport it.
travagant Priests had Confecrated the Elements without any Communicants,
nay, fome when they had Confecrated them did not themselves receive
them, and all thefe, in the very Inftances which he brings, were Reprehend-
ed and complain'd of for doing fuch extravagances; now can any honest Man
guess or conclude from thefe, that private Maffes were the allow'd and con-
fant Practice of old; or rather the Contrary. That they crept into the Church
by degrees with other grofs Impieties, and now are fixt by the Council of
Trent. He is as much out in the Application which he makes of that Custom
of keeping the Holy Bread, and Jending of it about after the Lord's Supper
was over. We own indeed that this Cuftom was in Primitive Ages, but we fay
that this Holy Bread, by Confecration, was made only the Symbol of Christ's
Body, and therefore called his Body, but not, as he would bear us down, Chrift's
De Euch. 1. 4. very real Body it felf. His inftances of its being used by Sick, and Infirm,
and diftreffed People or others, prove only that it was counted a Holy Thing;
Ibid. p. 259. c. as, Sanctum Domini, the Sanctified Thing of the Lord; (according to St. Cy-
prian;) as a Holy Philactory, or Amulet, or Antidote, or Alexipharmick,
as the prefent Greeks count and use the five Loaves at their Vefpers, and
the, Avdago, Andithero, and the, avayla, Virgin Mary's Bread, as I have
above noted; only they might of old have had fome more refpect to this Holy
Bread, as having been folemnly made a Symbol of Chrift's Body, but they
could never count it his very Body, or Chrift himself, because even Good and

lbid.

C. 4.

p. 26. and
P. 94. Q.

كا

1. 4. c. 4. P. 259. C.

Pious People (as Gorgonia) used it to fo Mean and often to fuch vile Pur. T. p. 165. pofes, as I have above noted; and in following times it was by all Sorts a- p. 154, 155.Q bufed to the greatest Superstitions and Impieties imaginable, as I could prove by an Antient and Curious MS. (which I have) of many little, but famous, Legends to that purpose, which fhall vie for truth and ftrangenets with any in Agapius. It is poffible that in Juftin's Times, the Abfent (to whom it was supr. 124. carried by the Deacons) might apprehend that they Communicated, with those who had been prefent, by taking part of this Confecrated Bread or Symbol, in Remembrance of Chrift's Paffion; But I do not find, neither can I believe, that it was then carried with that vain Pomp and Superftition now used in the Church of Rome; nay, every one of old took a piece of it with his own T. p. 166. hands at the Celebration, and might Eat it all there, or carry part of ir home with him, as the Greeks now do with their Anditbero. And when it was mutually fent to one another as a Sign or Token of mutual Peace, or Bro. Bell. de Euch. therly Love or Friendship, I do not find that it was done with more Reverence or Ceremony, then was used in fending the common, ¿vroya, Blessed Breads, p. 86. Q. above mention'd. Yet the Glorious Cardinal in commendation of their prefent pompous Proceffions in carrying abroad the Holy Bread, (which he will still call the Sacrament) in contradiftinction to the Primitive Chriftian Simplicity, hath this Rant; That the outward Honour of the most Holy Sacrament De Euch. 1. 4. Should have increased, especially whilst inward Devotion was decreasing, can c. 4. 259. H. difpleafe none but the Enemies of Chrift and Religion. Yet truly I muft fay, I cannot but think, that there is no Man, who fincerely loves Chrift and his pure Religion, but muft from his very Heart be grieved and forcly troubled, to fee the fimple and plain Practice, and the true and fervent Devotion, of the firft Chriftians in the Celebration of the Lord's Supper, turn'd into a meer outward Theatrical fhew and vain pompous Pageantry. Dofit heus, after he, according to his French Advices, had roundly affert ed Tranfubftantiation and all its abfurd Confequences, in as full Terms as the Latin School-men (the Fathers of it) had invented and difplay'd it, faith, this Mystery (or Sacrament) p. 243. Q. hic. chiefly is, and is called Wonderful, and is to be comprehended by Faith alone, not by the fubtilties of Human Wisdom, whofe vain and wild Inquifitivenefs into divine Matters we utterly difclaim. Surely when he wrote this he was in a Dream; when he had fo publickly efpoufed all those monftrous Tenents above mention'd, (which are the meer Product of Human Wildom; and all the 141.145.146. Sophiftry and cunning Craftiness, that the Schoolmens Wit can Devife, have been 109. Q. imploy'd to maintain them) could he be in good earnest when he tells us, that be difclaims all fuch vain and wild Curiofity or Pragmaticalnefs? The Account which I have plainly given of the Eucharift, as it was used in the Primitive times, is Obvious and Intelligible to every one. It is Evident that the Eucharift was inftituted in the place of the Jewish memorial of the Bread of Affliction; fo that this Phrafe, this is my Body, must be explain'd by this, this is the Bread of Affliction; and the Jews meant no more by it Then, (neither do they Now,) then this, this is in Remembrance of the Bread of Affliction. And the Jew-Chriftians, and Apostles before them, who were ufed to that Hebrew Phrafe, could neither think nor mean more by this, this is my Body, then this, this is in Remembrance of my Body. I wonder that in all this Controverfy betwixt the Metufiafts and the Reformed, this Remarkable and undeniable Truth was never infifted upon; for to me it clears all the Doubts and Difficulties, which the Pragmatical Schoolmen, or the Dreaming fpe- T. p. 167. culators of latter Ages, have by their Subtilties or Surmifes rais'd. The Primitive Christians, and those who follow'd till about the Tenth Century, (as I have p. 105. Q. noted) reverently received the Eucharift in Memory of Christ's Paffion, and thence called it his Body without any other Reflection, upon it; as the Jews of old and to this day Eat their Memorial Cake, and thence call it, the Bread of Affliction, without any farther Question about it; And thrice happy had been the Chriftian Church if the fame fimplicity had ftill continued in X 2

it.

P. 141.

p.123. a. 519.g.

And

T. p. 167. it. But about that Century, fome doting or Inquifitive Head, being really ig norant of the Primitive ufc and meaning of that Hebrew phrafe, this is my Body, through his little human Understanding and Wisdom, began to start Questions; How is this his Body! For it must be his Body, for Chrift spake Truth. Does not this Expreffion, this is my Body, in the Mind of him that faith it, imply Chrift's Body Really prefent? And many many more fuch idle Questions were multiply'd upon thefe; and fo by degrees they gave occafion to all the Scholaftick Trumpery which followed. Now a Primitive Christian, cfpecially a Jewish Convert, would certainly have anfwer'd the firft Question thus, I Eat the Bread in Remembrance of Chrift's Body, and Drink the Wine in Remembrance of his Blood, and therefore call them, his Body and Blood, as the Jews (and as I my felf when I was a Jew) did Eat the Memorial Cake in Remembrance of the Bread of Affliction, and therefore call'd it the Bread of Affliction; and this is, and is called, as properly Christ's Body, as that was, and was called the Bread of Affliction. he would undoubtedly have answer'd much after the fame manner to all fuch other vain and wild Inquifitions. I Reverently with my Brethren partake of the Bread and Wine, which are folemnly Bleft by the Prieft at the Communion, in Remembrance of Chrift's Body and Blood, who died for me and Bern. conc. 3. all Mankind; and I verily believe, if I Communicate with his Sufferings, in Pfalm. 91. and imitate that Holy Converfation which he led here in the Flef, that by this folemn Ceremony which he himself prefcribed, I Eat his Flesh and Drink his Blood; and am a living Member of his Myftical Body, or a true Chriftian; (as the Jews by partaking of the Pafchal Cake, in Remembrance of the Bread of Affliction, did count themselves true Sons of Ifrael;) without troubling our Heads or amusing our Selves or our Brethren with any fuch vain and wild enquiries. Next as to Chrift's Prefence, as the Jews believed that God was Prefent with them, fo I believe that Chrift is with us, as he promised, where two or three were met in his name, to be in the midst of them. As for any other Prefence, this is my Body, implies no more, then this, as the Bread of Affliction did. I fay therefore it is Impoffible that any Apoftle, even St. Paul himself, or any of the Jewish Converts, who had been accustomed to that Phrase, this the Bread of Affliction; should ever interpret or conceive this Phrafe, this is my Body, in any other way or Senfe then they had always done that; That is, the first, in Remembrance only of the Bread of Affliction, and the other, in Remembrance only of Chrift's Body. And this plain and rational Senfe of the words remain'd, I fay, in the Catholick Church, till about the tenth Century; and Copronymus his Council, and T. p. 168. the fecond Council of Nice, had both no other meaning of them, then, that the Bread was, and was believed, and was called the Body of Chrift, as properly, as the Jews Cake was, and was believed, and was called by them the Bread of Affliction; the Controverfy between them was only about the use of that new word, Image, which the Nicene Fathers condemn'd as an Innovation. We have an old faying in England, that one Fool may raife a Devil, which twenty Wife Men cannot lay again; I hope the candid Reader will Pardon me for mentioning this Courfe Proverb, fince it is fo exactly applicable to our prefent difcourfe. In the fad times of Ignorance and miferable blind Devotion about the tenth Century, Pafchafius muling upon the bare Letter of that Text, this is my Body, and being altogether Ignorant that it was a meer Hebraifm, and by confequence as Ignorant of the true and plain Senfe in which the Primitive Chriftians took it; ftumbled upon that extravagant conceit, that the Bread in the Sacrament after Confecration was no longer true Bread, but its Subftance quite vanifh'd away. How this new raifed Imp by degrees bewitch'd a great part of the Chriftian Church, and how it yet domineers by p. 105. 106. the perverfe zeal of its Votaries and Minifters, I have here above fhewn at large. Many inftances of the like Nature may be given, where good Chriftians have gone on quietly for a long time, in the plain Practice and Belief of fome Points

Mat. 18. 20.

Sufr.p.105.Q.

&c. Q.

of

C. 12. §. 2.

Labba T. 11.

p. 1872. D.

of true Piety and Primitive Devotion; But if fome conceited, bufy, fpecula- T. p. 168. tive Dreamer lights upon a wild, nice, impertinent, new Metaphyfical Notion; and vents it and cherishes it as his Darling; immediately, at - 1 Cor. 1. 20. , the wrangling Difputers of the Age take the matter in hand; and leaving the honeft Practice of a good Life to the Vulgar, they turn Religion into meer Opinion and Speculation, and ingrofs it only to themfelves; and hence come Parties and Factions, and these are all Hereticks reciprocally one to another, but each one Orthodox to themselves; and that great word, Orthodox, commonly justifies each Man to his Party, and with them it often covers (especially in a Friend) a multitude of Faults. I will here take leave to mention but one fuch Inftance more. All Chriftians throughout the World for many many Ages had stedfastly and piously believed the Transfiguration of Chrift, and whenever they heard or read the Defcription of it, they Devoutly admired and magnified Mat. 17. 2. his unspeakable Glory. But about three or four hundred Years fince a Parcel of Mark 9. 3. crazy Monks, feduced and cozened by the Devil (Dæmonis illufi præftigiis) Petav. Dogm. pretended to I know not what kind of Mystical visions; by bowing their Bo- The. T.1.1.1. dies, and deftorting their Eyes, and holding their Breath, they faw an odd Light; (I fuppofe only as People, who have been half hang'd, or a little ftrangled, or have had a blow on their Eyes, tell us that they faw as it were fparkles of Light or Fire) Greg. Palamas, (another hot headed Monk and chief of the fame Gang,) faid, the Light which shined about our Saviour, T. p. 169. was God himself. Barloam, juft fuch another Enthufiaftical medling Fryar, fell upon him violently and would have the Light to be but a meer Creature. The Greeks had feveral Councils about this wild impertinent Controverfy; and all Concluded in favour of Palamas, though the Latins count Barloam in the right. It is well that there was then a Schifm between the Greeks and the Latins; for had they agreed to either of thefe Opinions, it certainly had been made as folemn an Article of Faith, as Tranfubftantiation; or Rome would have fince made it fo in the Weft, if it had turn'd them to as good an Account as the other; But the Controverfy never coming before any pretended general Council, and remaining only as a difputable Point amongst the Airy, Inquifitive, trifling School Divines; God be Praifed, it is now quite laid afide; and all good Christians firmly believe the Transfiguration, as of old, without any concern for these impertinent Niceties; nay, I dare fay there is not one Chriftian of ten thoufand, and very few even of the Clergy themfelves, that ever heard, or at leaft ever seriously thought, of this vain Monkish Difpute. And had the Controversy about Chrift's Body in the Eucharift been left undetermined, and Men had had the free Liberty of arguing that Point, as they had at first; that Chimara of the Metufiafts had long before this been hoored out of the World and forgotten; But now Infallibility cannot part with it; they are fo firmly riveted together as they are Infeparable; and therefore all the Subtilties and Devices of human Wisdom, which the Wit of Man can invent are daily imploy'd to defend them both; and therefore this reverend Patriarch, who was never well informed of the other fide of the Controverfy, might eafily be thus impofed upon by them. Next he tells us, that the Elements being (according to him) p. 294 after Confecration the Body and Blood of Chrift, ought to be worshipped as the Trinity it felf; This is purely Latin Doctrine, for the Greeks Worship them before they are Confecrated, and are accounted Idolaters for it, but never Goar. p. 132. after, as is above faid. Next, he adds another Article of Latin Doctrine, that P.198.199. Q. the Eucharift is a true and Propitiatory Sacrifice for all the Faithfull both Quick and Dead, and for the profit of them all. Which feems to me to be Inconfiftent with what he hath faid before, that the Church, which is in Heaven, Triumphs, and is fettled in its own Countrey, and hath received its Re- P. 249. Dec. 10. ward. For if a true Propitiatory Sacrifice, according to the Conncil of Trent, Seff. 22. c. 3. is offer'd, pro peccatis, pænis, fatisfactionibus & aliis neceffitatibus, for Sins, Pu- T. 14. p. 855. nishments, Satisfactions and other needfull Things; and its very end, according to Bellarmine, is, propitiatio irati Dei & peccatorum Remiffio, the Ap- De Mil. 1. 2. peafing

Supr. p. 113. Q.

P. 294.

c. 1. d.