cum. 7. 8. P. 23. Sup. 10. 13. chifm. Lo, I am with you. Some of the old Interpreters faid it was by his Maldon, in lo- divine Nature, as being by it Prefent 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 Beafts, with Men both good and bad. It therefore figJoh. 14. 16,nifies that Chrift would be with them, by the Holy Spirit which he would fend them, to teach them all Truth, to direct and govern them. All which things are indeed very true, but other antient Expofitors feem to me to have beft explain'd the place; that Chrift might speak not only of his Divine, but also of his Human Prefence, not that as he was a Man he would be prefent with his Apoftles in (or with) his Body, but that he calls his Favour and his Help, his Prefence; and that he would afford that to them, not only as he was God, but as he was Man; for he is faid to be with them, because he would by his help be with them in all things, as God is faid to have been with Jofeph. Here they plainly own to be meant, not any Prefence of Chrift's Body, but only of his Holy Spirit, whofe Favour, Help, Comfort. Direction and Grace is truly his real Prefence; which according to his Promife, was ever believed to be Performed to us in all our facred and folemn Meetings; our publick Fafts and Humiliations, our Prayers, Supplications, Praifes Church Cate and Thanksgivings; efpecially in those two only divine Ordinances (as being plainly Inftituted by himself) as generally neceffary to Salvation, that is to Jay, Baptifm and the Supper of the Lord. The Elements in both are Sanctified alike by the real Prefence and Affiftance of the fame moft Holy Spirit. The Bread and Wine in one, are no otherwife in Subftance changed, then the Water is in the other; but both are now no longer Common, but are alike Confecrated or made Holy, to the Intent and Ufe for which Chrift himself appointed them, as Irenæus and all the Primitive Fathers unanimoufly teach us. very pretended Liturgy of Chryfoftom (before it was Interpolated) faid the fame thing, ueraCara age Vevey, 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. μeTabáÑEN, METAπov, and the like, to change; and not invented, and as boldly Afferted, that most abfurd Mode, of Subftantially changing the Elements, 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 faying, that he would be with us forever, although he is with us by other means of Grace and of his Benefactions, yet by a more • Excellent manner he dwells in us, and is with us by the Epifcopal Administration, and is united to us by the holy Mysteries, or Sacraments; fo that his real Prefence is the very fame in Baptifm and the Supper of our Lord, which are both alike of his own Inftitution; and Chrift's Bodily Prefence is no more real, nor more neceffary, in one then in the other, for the affording his Affiftance and divine Help. * p. 24. p. 253. The It is the common Maxim, or Cant rather, of the Latins, that it is enough for a good Popish Christian, 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 Eucharift is the Body of Chrift, nay, his Blood too, (though if he be a Layman he receives not one drop of the Wine) believes Tranfubftantiation as truly as Bellarmine himself, or the cunningeft Schoolmen ever did; though he cannot answer you one word if you ask him, what he means by Chrift's Body and Blood? Is it his very Flesh and Bones entire, which hang'd upon the Cross, which he now takes into his Mouth, and grinding it with his Teeth then fwallows down? Is the fame Morfel, not only, that very Body, but alfo that very Blood too which he then fhed there? If he believes not this very thing, he believes not Tranfubftantiation. If he believes not this, he Rom. 10.8,9,believes he knows not what. With the outward words which he speaks, there must be an inward steady Thought to accompany them, or else his 10. only only faying, that he believes, is no more true Belief, (as I have elsewhere noted) then the pratling of a Pye or Parrot. * * p. 24. ·Trajano. The learned Marquis often offer'd at an Evafion in this Point, and faid that all Chriftians might well have then a real Notion of fome kind of a Corporeal Prefence of Christ, though the weaker and meaner or more vulgar fort of them might not be fo clearly informed of it, as the more apprehensive and refined ones were. But was the true Senfe and plain Belief of this material Point concerning the Bodily Prefence of Christ in the Sacrament, fo obfcure as to be intended for, or Confined to, only fome few Ripe-witted, Intelligent or Speculative Perfons; or was it fo plain (which it ought to be) as to be extended to every poor Soul though of the meaneft Capacity? The meaneft Communicants, if they have but common Senfe and the Fear of God, can readily apprehend and feel in their Souls this Spiritual and truly real Prefence of Chrift which I contend for at the Eucharift; but to fay that the Bodily Prefence was a great Mystery much concealed at first, (yet more to fome, and lefs to others, but alike neceflary to all) is a meer Jeft. The abfurd Myfteries indeed of the Heathens were for fhame concealed amongst thofe Priests, which were properly and peculiarly belonging to their several diftinct 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 closest Secrefy we find dropt up and down in their own Authors fufficient p. 25. accounts of their abominable Practices. Now if this Notion of Christ's bodily Prefence had been the belief of the Primitive Chriftians, it is impossible that it should not have been discovered, at least by fome of the Profelites or Profeffors 1. 10. of it. For Pliny to Trajan faith, that he made the ftricteft 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 Confefs; Now it is impoffible, that all the Primitive Believers fhould be fuch, xa, abfolute Rulers of their Tongue, but that fome at least of the weaker fort, would have told him of this Mystery, if there had been any fuch 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 fign of their belief of Chrift's Spiritual Prefence. He faith, that they did eat together, and though that muft needs have given a fair and full occafion to have had fome notice of their Eating of Chrift's Body, (if that had been then their belief,) yet we find not there the leaft thing like it. I must have the very fame thoughts of the times of Celfus, Porphyry, Hierocles, and the rest of the Inquifitive Enemies of the Primitive Chriftians; efpecially Julian, who had been Initiated in that Religion. If there had been any fuch abfurd Tenet amongst the Chriftians of those days, it feems to me utterly Impoffible that they fhould not, fome ways or other, have heard of it; and as opprobriously and bitterly expofed it and exploded it, as the prefent Turks and Mahometans do now; who every where brand the Papists with those abominable names, Allahyerler, Allahyenerter, Allahieneingter, God-Eaters, Devourers of God, meaning thereby, that they first pretend to make a piece of Bread, Chrift, their God; and then they Eat him. I would very fain know how many Turks, or Jews, or Heathens, the Pious and Zealous Miffionaries of Rome; thofe Religious Propagators of Faith, have made, or can make, Profelites to this fublime belief of Chrift's Bodily Prefence; Ask any one of those three Eastern People, who fhall fee, and Smell, and Taft or Eat, what the Latins or Greeks lay Confecrated upon the Patine at the Eucharift, what it then is? And I will be a Metufiate at that very hour, if they do not fay, nay (if there was occafion) foberly Swear that it is plain Bread or Wafer still. This Roman Doctrine feems very well and fully expreft in that Italian Distick which I have often heard. Gli Mifteri d' Iddio colui vede That Man the Myfteries of God doth fec, Yet I find it moft Ingenuously and as fmartly confuted in a pleafant Story of the great Erafmus and our Famous Sir Tho. More; Sir Thomas had lent him a Palfry, or Pad-Nag, to carry him down to the Scafide when he left England; Erafmus liked him fo well, as he took him on Ship-board, and carried him away with him into Holland. They had had many ferious Difcourses about Chrift's Prefence in the Eucharift, and Erafmus after his return thither, thus wittily, in a Letter to him, excufes himfelf in Monkish verfe for keeping the Horse. Quod mihi dixifti De tuo Palfrido, Crede quod Habes, & Habes. What of Chrift's Body to me Though with me he still remain, By this we may very rationally guess, that that Wife and Learned Reformer thought, that the Bodily Prefence of Chrift in Heaven, and in the Eucharift and the Horfe's being in Holland and England at the fame time, were equally overstretcht and abfurd. Christ's Spiritual Prefence, at the Eucharift, was ever (from the first Institution of it to this very day) believed and Confeffed by all true Chriftians. It is very ftrange that we meet with nothing of his Bodily Prefence, expreffly in any of the Fathers for about five or fix hundred years. The Latins argue from hence, that it was all along believed, because it was never all this time once queftion'd or forbidden. I fay it is more manifeft to me that it was never thought of. For by the fame Argument they may fay, that the Glorious light of Christ's Transfiguration (let it be God himself, or a Creature) was alfo determined from the beginning, becaufe we read nothing of it one way or other, before Palamas and Barlaam's days. And the like may be faid of many many more fuch useless Speculations, never dream'd of till they were long afterwards ftarted by pragmatical and roving Heads, bufy Inquirers into, or Makers of, Miracles. Was the Doctrine of Accidents known to the Apoftles and Primitive Chriftians, or was it Concealed until it was Revealed to the Schoolmen? Yet why do I fay Revealed? They have left it ten thousand times more Intricate, Confufed and Unintelligible, then the Bodily Prefence was before. And they no more agree amongst themselves, then the Greeks do about their, megides, Portions; that is, whether all are made Chrift's Body alike, or whether only Chrift's Portion, and that of the Virgin Mary, or both, are made fo. By this Doctrine of Accidents I wonder that no Angelical, or rather Chimerical Doctor of their Schools, did by it attempt to perfuade us, that all the old Sacrifices and legal Types of Chrift 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 ref of their common Accidents. Especially me thinks P. 26. thinks the Rock, or the Water which follow'd them, or went with them, (which St. Paul expreffly tells us was Chrift,) might really be the very Sub-1 Cor. 10. 4. ftance of his Body, only Modified with the fenfible Accidents of a Rock or Water without a Subject. We know that many great Men have told us that the Angels, which appear'd to Abraham and others of the Fathers, (and most pofitively Melchifedech) were all of them Chrift himself. If God concealed or covered thefe, avežegeúrta x àvežıxvíaça, unfearchable and unintelligible things, wo be to those bold, daring, Prefumptuous Spirits who fhall attempt to uncover them; for my part I fhall never take School Divinity for Revelation. What 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 Effence and Nature by a fecond or new Untranfubftantiation? Or remaining (as they are pretended to be when they are first received) ftill Chrift's very Body and Blood, do they circulate with our Blood and common Nourishment? Are they made part of our Bodies? Or do they pafs fome into the Draught, or are they evacuated fome by Sweat, Spittle, Urine or otherwife? If the Metufiots cannot clearly answer thefe and thousands of fuch other Difficulties which arise about this Article, it refts 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 difputes about the Modes of most of the Articles of our Faith, as well as about that of Christ's Prefence? God made the World; was it with a turn or lave, with Levers, Axes, and Hammers? He faid, let there be Light, had he a Mouth? Did he fpeak? Were the words Hebrew? I know not the Mode or Manner how God did this, but I am fure it was not thus groffly done; the fame I must fay of that Mode, of a Bodily Prefence. How did the Virgin Mary bring forth a Child without the knowledge of a Man? I was told when I was at Rome that once a Jefuit taught, that a drop of her living Blood was conveighed into her Womb, and was there brooded into a Child. O Blafphemous 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 impregnated by the Wind, to prove the poffibility of the thing. But I fhall fay no more of fuch Extravagant, Crack brain'd Enthufiafts, but condemn them to Bedlam, to Bleeding, to Chains, fresh Straw, and Darkness. The noble Marquis many times took occafion to mention and infift upon this other common Plea of the Jefuits; the Bodily Prefence, fay they, was cer- p. 27. tainly believed by the Apostles and the Primitive Chriftians, and fo handed down to us from the beginning, by a continued delivery from Fathers to their Succeffors; for otherwife if only Chrift's Spiritual Prefence had been then their Belief, it is utterly Impoffible that it should ever have been afterwards changed into fo amazing a Doctrine as Tranfubftantiation, without fome notorious Oppofition and fierce Difputes of fome Learned Men or other, who lived at the time when it was first started and impofed upon the Church. But we know that many many fuch Extravagant Changes have not only been Poffible, but by degrees have been actually made, quietly, and without any publick reprehenfions of their firft Authors, and the certain date of their firft Rife is unknown 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 inftead of a whole Loaf at the Eucharift; the various ways of Elections, Ordinations, and Confecrations, and numbers of the Clergy, or Church Ministers, ufed in both East and Weft; the many and different Liturgies and other matters of Moment which I have mention'd before; I fhall here Inftance in fome 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, Superftition and Ignorance of fucceeding Ages, have one after another crept into the Church and by degrees have quite defiled and in a manner utterly deftroy'd the Original art. 2. * P. p. 27. riginal and Native Beauty of Holiness and Devotion, which alone were Taught and Practifed by the Apostles and their Primitive Succeffors. 28. of. Was the ufe of the Cup withheld from the Laity in thofe days? Were they then admitted only to half the Communion? Was the Doctrine of Accidents then known, or indeed is it yet fully fettled or understood? Was the Do3. Sum. q. 76. Etrine of Concomitancy taught before Aquinas? If he must be called for it an Angelical Doctor, I fhall not be fo rude as to fay what Order he was Was the formal Canon of the Latins Mafs before Gregory the Great, or his Scholafticus? I have a MS. of it Tranflated (as it is thought) by Beffarion into Greek; but if the Greeks used it at the Council of Florence, they never used it either before or fince. We are taught that the Eucharist was ac first Celebrated or Confecrated by only the Lord's Prayer; and afterwards not above two or three little fhort Prayers were added to it; but both the Greeks Synaxis and the Popish Mafs are now of quite another Contrivance, Form and Length; efpecially the former, for if it be fully and leafurely perform'd, it will take up fome whole hours to do it in, as I my felf 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 ftand, they are both far enough from faBellar. de miff. vouring their darling, Tranfubftantiation. It is well known that the Popes 1. a. c. 19, 20. patcht their Canon, and variously new Modell'd it, one after another according to every ones Caprice, or Fancy; and the Greek Patriarchs and Prelates (as I have elsewhere noted) did the fame with their Synaxis. Whether Christ at his Supper ufed Fermented or Unfermented Bread, I will not here difpute; but whatever it was, I am fure it was changed, by either the whole Greck, or by the whole Latin Church; the one conftantly using the one, and the other the other, without any difpute for about a thousand years after Chrift. The like may be noted concerning the Water which is mixt with the Wine at the Eucharift; was it hot as the Greeks now do it, or cold as the Latins do it. Was the Grecks way of plunging the Child thrice in the Water at Baptifm, 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 manifeftly changed the first Institution. But if the Primitive manner was for both the Baptizer and Baptized, to go both into the Water together, (as our Anabaptifts pretend,) both Grecks and Latins have long ago departed from it, and changed it after their own peculiar way. It is plain that Chrift brake the Loaf at his laft Supper; but both Greeks and Latins have changed that Practice, into fancifull contrivances of their own; each differing from one another, as far as both differ from the Pattern and Example of Chrift himfelf; and the Schoolmens heads have grown fo egregiously giddy and wild about explaining of the breaking of the pretended Body of Christ, as fhould any fober Man, so far trifle away his time, as to endeavour to understand or reconcile their various Extravagancies about it, he would foon hazard the making of himself as mad as they; he might find that, their monstrous Speculation, very poffible; Ibi fiat Fractio ubi nihil frangitur, there may be a real, Formal, breaking where there is nothing broken; but I fear it will only be in his own brains. How come the common Doxology to be differently faid in the two Churches; the Greeks never used any other then this; Δόξα πατρὶ καὶ ὑιῷ καὶ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι, να νιῦ καὶ ἄεὶ καὶ εἰς τῆς al@vas Tŵr άewÿæv, Apr. Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, both now, and for ever, and to Ages of Ages, Amen. In the Latin Church, to this hath been added, and without any difpute on either fide continued to this very day, ficat erat in Principio, As it was in the Beginning. If the Greeks Form was Primitive, it was a bold attempt in the Latins to patch into it this new piece (be the occafion what it will) without the Greeks confent and compliance in its daily ufe. Did any one for a thousand years dare, Audacter dicere, boldly to fay, that Auricular Confeffion to a Priest and his Abfolution were abfolutely neceffary to a worthy Communicant, though he was never fo truly Penitent, and had moft humbly confeft his unworthiness be Mat. 3. 13. fore |