Obrazy na stronie
PDF
ePub
[ocr errors]

p. 23.

Maldon, in lo

cum.

7, 8.

Sup. 10. 13•

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

Lo, I am with you. Some of the old Interpreters said it was by his

divine Nature, as being by it Present every where; but this his Prefence here Mat. 28. 20. with the Apostles, must be meant in a more peculiar way then it is with every Creature, with Beasts

, with Men borh good and bad. It therefore figJoh. 14. 16, nifies that Christ would be with them, by the Holy Spirit which he would

send them, to teach them all Truth, to direct and govern them. All which
things are indeed very true, but other antient Expositors seem to me to have
beft explaind the places that Christ might speak not only of his Divine,
but also of his Human Presence, not that as he was a Man he would be pre-
fent with his Apostles in (or with) his Body, but that he calls his Favour and
bis Help, his presence; and that he would afford that to them, not only as
he was God, bar as he was Man; for he is said to be with them, because
be would by his help be with them in all things, as God is said to have
been with Jofeph. Here they plainly own to be meapt, not any Presence of
Christ's Body, but only of his Holy Spirit; whose Favour, Help, Comfort.
Direction and Grace is truly his real Presente; which according to his Pro-
mise, was ever believed to be Performed to us in all our sacred and solemn Meet.

ings; our publick Fasts and Humiliations, our Prayers, Supplications, Praises Church Cate and Thanksgivings; especially in those two only divine Ordinances (as being chism.

plaioly Instituted by himself) as generally neceffary to Salvation, that is to
Jay, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord. The Elements in both are San-
dified asike by the real Presence and Asistance of the same most Holy Spirit.

The Bread and Wine in one, are no otherwise in Substance changed, then the * po 24. Water is in the other ; but both are now no longer Common, but are alike Con

fecrated or made Holy, to the Intent and Use for which Christ himself appoint-
ed them, as Irenæus and all the Priinitive Fathers unanimously teach us. The
very pretended Licurgy of Chryfoftom (before it was Interpolated) said the
fame ching, ueta Carav et veread, changing fo as it may be to the Receivers.
for the Sobriety of their Mind, the Communion, or Communication of the
Holy Spirit, &c. If the Latins had rested in these words of the antient Fathers,
MetabáME, METO Torv, and the like, to change; and not invented, and as bold-

ly Afferred, that most abfurd Mode, of Substantially changing the Elements, p. 253

we might have been at peace to this very hour. The Synod of Jerufalem,

(though perhaps unawares) put an honester and fuller Interpretation upon the Mat. 28. 20. Text, the Lord saying, that he would be with us forever, although he is

* with us by orher means of Grace and of his Benefa&ions, yet by a more
• Excelleme maoner he dwells in us, and is with us by the Episcopal Administra-
* cion, and is united to us by the holy Mysteries, or Sacraments; fo that his
real Prefence is the very fame in Baprifm and the Supper of our Lord, which
are both alike of his own Institution; and Christ's Bodily Presence is no more
real, nor more necessary, in one then in the other, for the affording his Afift-
ance and divine Help.

It is the common Maxim, or Cant rather, of the Latios, that ir is enough
for a good Popith Christiaa, to believe the thing as their Church believes
it, without making any Reflections about it. So then the most ignorant
wretch amongst them that only faith, that he believes that what he receives
in the Eucharist is the Body of Christ, say, his Blood too, (though if he be
a Lay.man he receives 'not one drop of the Wine) believes Tranfubftantiation
as truly as Bellarmine himself, or the cunningest Schoolmen ever did; thougla
he capoot apfwer you one word if you ask him, what he means by Christ's Body
and Blood? Is it his very Flesh and Bones entire, which hang'd upon the
Cross, which be now takes into his Mouth, and grinding it with his Teeth
then fwablows down? Is the fame Morsel, not only, that very Body, i but
also that very Blood too which he then thed there? If he believes not this

svery thing, he believes not Transubstantiation. If he believes not this, he Rom, 10.8,9,believes he knows not what. With the outward words which he fpeaks, there must be an inward steady Thought to accompany them, or else his

only

1

F

[ocr errors]

ones were.

only saying, that he believes, is no more trre Belief, ( as I have clsewhere

* p. 24. pored) then the pratling of a Pye or Parrot.

The learned Marquis often offer'd at an Evasion in this Point, and said that all Christians might well have then a real Notion of some kind of a Corporeal Presence of Christ, though the weaker and meaner or more vulgar sort of them might not be so clearly informed of it, as the more appreheosive and refined

But was the true Sense and plain Belief of this material Point concerning the Bodily Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, so obscure as to be intended for, or Confined to, only some few Ripe-witred, Intelligcat or Speculacive Perfons; or was it so plain (which it ough to be) as to be extended to every poor Soul though of the meanest Capacity? The meanest Communicants, if they have but common Sense and the Fear of God, can readily apprehend and feel in their Souls this Spiritual and truly real Presence of Christ which 1 contend for at the Eucharist; but to say that the Bodily Presence was a great Mystery much concealed at first, (yet more to some, and less to others, but alike necessary to all) is a meer Jest. The absurd Mysteries indeed of the Heathens were for shame concealed amongst those Priests, which were properly and peculiarly belonging to their several distinct Deities, and were carefully kept from the vulgar whom they counted Prophane, according to these and the like fayings, Procul hinc Procul inde prophani; odi prophanum vulgus & arceo, Away, away, get you out all ye prophane Wretches; yet notwithstanding all their clotest Secresy we find drope up and down in their own Authors fufficient * p. 25. accounts of their abominable Practices. Now if this Notion of Christ's bodily Presence had been the belief of the Primitive Christians, it is impossible that it should not have been discovered, at least by some of the Proselites or Professors 1. 10.

Trajane. of it. For Pliny to Trajan faith, that he made the strictest enquiry possible after the Christians Practice ; he question’d, Ancillas, two of their Maid Servants about it, and either used, or at least threaten'd, Tormenta, Torments, or Violence, to make them Confess; Now it is impossible, that all the Primitive Bclievers should be such, exépetos, absolute Rulers of their Tongue, but that fome at least of the weaker fore, would have told him of this Mystery, if there had been any such amongst them. He tells us truly of their Sacrament, or Oath, which they took, or made, to live Holy and Blameless Lives; that was a fufficient sign of their belief of Christ's Spiritual Presence. He faith, that they did eat together, and though that must needs have given a fair and full occasion to have had some notice of their Eating of Christ's Body, (if that had been then their belief,) yet we find not there the least thing like it. I must have the very fame thoughts of the times of Celsus, Porphyry, Hierocles, and the rest of the Inquisitive Enemies of the Primitive Christians; especially Julian, who had been Initiated in that Religion. If there had been any such ablurd Tenet amongst the Christians of those days, it seems to me utterly Impossible that they should not, lome ways or other, have heard of it; and as opprobriously and bitterly exposed it and exploded it, as the present Turks and Mahomerans do now; who every where brand the Papists with those abominable pames, Allahyerler, Allahyenerter, Allahieneingter, God-Eaters, Devourers of God, meaning thereby, that they first pretend to make a piece of Bread, Christ, their God; and then they Ēat him. I would very fain know how many Turks, or Jews, or Heathens, the Pious and Zealous Missionaries of Rome; those Religious Propagators of Faith, have made, or can make, Proselites to this sublime belief of Christ's Bodily Presence ; Ask any one of those three Eastern People, who shall fee, and Smell, and Tast or Eat, what the Latins or Greeks lay Confecrated upon the Parise at the Eucharist, what it then is ? And I will be a Metusiate at that very hour, if they do not fay, nay (if there was occasion ) soberly Swear that it is plain Bread or Wafer stili. This Roman Doctrine seems very well and fully exprest in that Italian Distick which I have often heard.

[ocr errors][merged small]

* p. 250

Gli Misteri d'Iddio colui vede
Chi serra gli occhi e crede.

That Man the Mysteries of God doth see,
Who shurs his Eyes believing them to be.

Yer I find it most Ingenuously and as smartly confuted in a pleasant Story of the great Erasmus and our Famous Sir Tho. More; Sir Thomas had lent him a Palfry, or Pad-Nag, to carry him down to the Seaside when he left England; Erasmus liked him so well, as he took him on Ship-board, and carried him away with him into Holland. They had had many serious Discourses about Christ's Presence in the Eucharist, and Erasmus after his return thither, thus wittily, in a Letter to him, excuses himself in Monkish verse for keeping the Horse

Quod mihi dixisti

De Corpore Christi,
Crede quod Edis, 6 Edis;

Sic tibi rescribo

De tuo Palfrido,
Crede quod Habes, 6 Habes.

What of Christ's Body to me

You said what you do not fee,
Believe you Receive, you Receive it;

I of your Nag say again,

Though with me he still remain,
Believe that you have it, you have it.

* p. 26.

By this we may very rationally guess, that that Wise and Learned Reformet thought, that the Bodily Presence of Christ in Heaven, and in the Eucharist; and i he Horse's being in Holland and England at the fame time, were equally overstretcht and absurd.

Christ's spiritual Presence, at the Eucharist, was ever (from the first Institution of it to this very day) believed and Confessed by all true Christians. It is very strange that we meet with nothing of his Bodily Presence, expressly in

aby of the Fathers for about five or six hundred years. The Latins argue from hence, that it was all along believed, because it was never all this time once question'd or forbidden. I say it is more manifest to me that it was never thought of. For by the same Argument they may say, that the Glorious light of Christ's Transfiguration (let it be God himself, or a Creature) was also determined from the beginning, because we read nothing of it one way or other, before Palamas and Barlaam's days. And the like may be said of many many more such useless Speculations, never dream'd of till they were long afterwards started by pragmatical and roving Heads, busy Inquirers into, or Makers of, Miracles. Was the Doctrine of Accidents known to the Apostles and Primitive Christians, or was it Concealed uncil it was Revealed to the Schoolmen? Yet why do I say Revealed? They have left it ten thousand times more intricate, Confused and Unintelligible, then the Bodily Presence was before. And they no more agree amongst themselves, then the Greeks do about their, uegides, Portions; that is, whether all are made Christ's Body alike, or whether only Christ's Portion, and that of the Virgin Mary, or both, aro made so. By this Doctrine of Accidents I wonder that no Angelical, or rather Chimerical Doctor of their Schools, did by it attempt to perluade us, that all the old Sacrifices and legal Types of Christ were really Tranfubftantiated into Christ's very Body it felf, and that nothing remain’d in them but the bare outward Shape, Colour, and the rest of their common Accidents. Especially me

p. 26.

thinks the Rock, or the Water which follow'd them, or went with them, (which St. Paul expressly tells us was Christ,) might really be the very Sub-" Cor. 10.4. stance of his Body, only Modified with the sensible Accidents of a Rock or Water without a Subject. We koow that many great Men have told us that the Angels, which appeard to Abraham and others of the Fathers, (and most positively Melchisedech) were all of them Christ himself. If God concealed or covered these, avežegeurn toe xj årečixvíaça, un searchable and

unintelligible things, wo be to those bold, daring, Presumptuous Spirits who shall attempt to uncover them; for my part 1 shall never take School Divinity for Revelation. Whac becomes of the Confecrated Elements when they are gone down into the Belly? Do they (as I have often demanded ) return again to their first Esence and Nature by a second or new Untransubstantiation? Or remaining (as they are pretended to be when they are first received) still Christ's very Body and Blood, do they circulate with our Blood and common Nourishment ? Are they made part of our Bodies ? Or do they pass some into the Draughr, or are they evacuated some by Sweat, Spittle, Urine or otherwise? If the Metufiots cannot clearly ansiver these and thousands of such other Difficulties which arise about this Article, it rests more hidden then ever, and the more they meddle with it the farther they run into the Dark. Might they not now as well make daily disputes about the Modes of most of the Articles of our Faith, as well as about that of Christ's Presence? God made the World; was it with a turn or lave, with Levers, Axes, and Hammers? He said, let there be Light, had he a Mouth? Did he speak? Were the words Hebrew? I know not the Mode or Manner how God did this, but I am sure it was not thus grossly done; the same I must say of that Mode, of a Bodily Presence. How did the Virgin Mary bring forth a Child without the koowledge of a Map? I was told when I was at Rome that once a Jesuit taught, that a drop of her living Blood was conveighed into her Womb, and was there brooded into a Child. O Blasphemous Wretch! Yet I think it was as tolerable in him as that in an Author of our own, (whom I could name) who hath Printed the Fable of Spanish Genets being impregoated by the Wind, to prove the possibility of the thing. But I Thall say no more of such Extravagant, Crack brain d Enthusiasts, but condemo them to Bedlam, to Bleeding, to Chains, freth Straw, and Darkness. The noble Marquis many times took occasion to mention and insist

upon

this other common Plea of the Jesuits; the Bodily Presence, fay they, was certainly believed by the Apostles and the Primitive Christians, and so hand. ed down to us from the beginning, by a continued delivery from Fathers to their Successors; for otherwise if only Christ's Spiritual Presence had been then their Belief, it is utterly Impossible that it should ever have been afterwards changed into so amazing a Doctrine as Transubstantiation, without some notorious Opposition and fierce Disputes of some Learned Men or other, who lived at the time when it was first started and imposed upon the Church.

But we know that many many such Extravagant Changes have not only been Posible, but by degrees have been actually made, quietly, and without any publick reprehensions of their first Authors, and the certain date of their firit Rise is uoknown to us to this very day. Not to repeat the eleven Portions of the Greeks, or the little round Wafer of the Latins, taken up and used instead of a whole Loaf at the Eucharist; the various ways of Elections, Ordinations, and Consecrations, and numbers of the Clergy, or Church Ministers, used in both East and West; the inany and different Liturgies and other matters of Moment which I have mention'd before; I shall here Instance in some few more (for there would be no end in naming of all,) of the notorious and pernicious Innovations and corrupt Practices, which by the Craft and Subtilty of the Devil, and the Arrogance, blind Zeal, Superstition and Ignorance of succeeding Ages, have one after another crept into the Church and by degrees have quite defiled and in a manner utterly destroy'd the O

riginal

* p. 27

art. 2.

[ocr errors]

* p. 27. riginal and Native Beauty of Holiness and Devotion, which alone were

Taught and Practised by the Apostles and their Primitive Successors.

Was the use of the Cup withheld froin the Laity in those days? Were they then admitted only to half the Communion? Was the Doctrine of Accidents

then known, or indeed is it yet fully settled or understood? Was the Do3. Sum. q. 76. Etrine of Concomitancy taught before Aquinas? if he must be called for is

an Angelical Doctor, I hall not be so rude as to say what Order he was
of. Was the formal Canon of the Latins Mass before Gregory the Great,
or his Scholasticus? I have a MS. of it Translated (as it is thought) by
Besarion into Grcek; but if the Greeks used it at the Council of Florence, they
never used it either before or since. We are taught that the Eucharift was ar
first Celebrated or Consecrated by only the Lord's Prayer; and afterwards not
above two or three little short Prayers were added to it; but both the Greeks
Syoaxis and the Popish Mass are now of quite another Contrivance, Form and
Length; especially the former, for if it be fully and leasurely perform'd, it will
take up some whole hours to do it in, as I my self have often been both an
humble Eye and Ear-witness; yet both of them are fo jumbled and oddly

put together, that as they even now stand, they are both far enough from faBellar, de miff. vouring their darling, Transubstantiation. It is well known that the Popes I. 2. C. 19, 20. patcht their Canon, and variously new Modell’d it, one after another accord

ing to every ones Caprice, or Fancy; and the Greek Patriarchs and Prelates
(as I have elsewhere potcd) did the fame with their Synaxis. Whether Christ
at his Supper used Fermented or Vnfermented Bread, I will not here dif-
pute; but whatever it was, I am sure it was changed, by either the whole
Greek, or by the whole Latin Church; the one constantly using the one, and
the other the other, without any dispute for about a thousand years after Christ.
The like may be noted concerning the Water which is mixt wich the Wine at

the Eucharist; was it hot as the Greeks now do it, or cold as the Latins do p. 28.

Was the Grecks way of plunging the Child thrice in the Water at Baptism, or the Latins way of only Sprinkling or dipping the Child once in it.

Primitive ? If one or the other was fo, one Church hath mapifestly changed the
Mat. 3. 13. first Institution. But if the Primitive manner was for both the Baptizer and
Ac. 8. 38. Baptized, to go both into the Water together, (as our Anabaptists pretend)

both Greeks and Latins have long ago departed from it, and changed it after their
owo peculiar way. It is plain that Christ brake the Loaf at his last Supper;
but both Greeks and Latins have changed that Practice, into fancifull contriv.
ances of their own; each differing from one another, as far as both differ
from the Pattern and Example of Christ himself; and the Schoolmens heads
have grown fo egregiously giddy and wild about explaining of the breaking of the
pretended Body of Chriji, as should any fober Man, so far trifle away his time,
as to endeavour to understand or reconcile their various Extravagancies about it,
he would soon hazard the making of himself as mad as they; he might find
that, their monstrous Speculation, very possible; Ibi fiat Fractio ubi nihil
frangitur, there may be a real, Formal, breaking where there is nothing bro-
ken; but I fear it will only be in his own brains. How come the common
Doxology to be differently said in the two Churches; the Greeks never used
any other then this; Δόξα πατρί και Υιώ και αγίω πνεύματι, και νιώ και αεί και εις τας
akávas Tūv accóicar, Auxv. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Ho-
ly Ghofi, both now, and for ever, and to Ages of Ages, Amen. In the La-
tin Church, to this hath been added, and without any dilpute on either side con-
tinued to this very day, ficat erat in Principio, As it was in the Beginniog.
If the Greeks Form was Primitive, it was a bold attempt in the Latins to patch
into it this new piece (be the occasion what it will) without the Greeks con-
fent and compliance in its daily use. Did any one for a thousand years dare,
Audacter dicere, boldly to say, that Auricular Confeßion to a Priest and his
Absolution were absolutely necessary to a worthy Communicant, though he was
never fo truly Penitent, and had most humbly confest his unworthiocfs be-

fore

it.

t

« PoprzedniaDalej »