V. In the same century, or beginning of the next, when the Marcionites revived the old pretences of the Visionaries, rejecting our Lord's humanity; the Eucharist still served, as before, to confound the adversaries: for it was impossible to invent any just reply to this plain argument, that our Lord's appointing a memorial to be observed, of his body broken and of his blood shed, must imply, that he really took part of flesh and blood, and was in substance and in truth what the Sacrament sets forth in symbols and figures i.

VI. When the Encratitae, or Continents, of the second century, (so called from their overscrupulous abstemiousness,) had contracted odd prejudices against the use of wine, as absolutely unlawful; the Sacrament of the Eucharist was justly pleaded, as alone sufficient to correct their groundless surmises k but rather than part with a favourite principle, they chose to celebrate the Communion in water only, rejecting wine; and were from thence styled Aquarians 1. Which practice of theirs served however to detect their hypocrisy, and to take off the sheep's clothing: for nobody could now make it any question, whether those so seemingly conscientious and self-denying teachers were really deceivers, when they were found to make no scruple of violating a holy Sacrament, and running directly counter to the express commands and known practice of Christ their Lord.

VII. When the Praxeans, Noetians, and Sabellians, of the second and third centuries, presumed to innovate in the doctrine of the Trinity, by reducing the three Persons of the Godhead to one; then the Sacrament of Baptism remarkably

'Acceptum panem, et distributum discipulis, corpus illum suum fecit, Hoc est corpus meum, dicendo; id est figura corporis mei. Figura autem non fuisset, nisi veritatis esset corpus: ceterum vacua res, quod est phantasma, figuram capere non posset.' Tertull. adv. Marc. lib. iv. c. 40. p. 458. Cp. Pseud. Orig. Dial. contr. Marcion.

lib. iv. p. 853. ed. Bened.

Vid. Clem. Alex. Paedag. lib. ii. cap. 2. p. 186. Strom. lib. i. p. 359.

1 Epiphan. Haeres. xlvii. 3. Theodorit. Haeret. Fab. lib. i. cap. 21. Philastrius, Haer. lxxvii. p. 146. Augustinus, Haer. cap. lxiv.

manifested its doctrinal force, to the confusion of those misbelievers. There was no resisting the pointed language of the sacramental form, which ran distinctly in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost m. It seems, that those men being conscious of it, did therefore change our Lord's form, and baptized in a new one of their own"; not considering, that that was plunging deeper than before, and adding iniquitous practice to ungodly principles. But the case was desperate, and they had no other way left to make themselves appear consistent men. In the meanwhile, their carrying matters to such lengths could not but make their false doctrine the more notorious to all men, and prevent its stealing upon honest and well disposed Christians, by ignorance or surprise. Such was the seasonable use of the Sacrament of Baptism in that instance; detecting error, and obstructing its progress, and strongly supporting the true faith.

It was

VIII. When the Arians, of the fourth century, took upon them to deprave the doctrine of the Trinity in an opposite extreme, by rejecting the Deity of our Saviour Christ, 'who is over all, God blessed for ever°;' then again the same Sacrament of Baptism reclaimed against novelty, and convicted the misbelievers in the face of the world. obvious to every impartial and considering man, that the form of Baptism ran equally in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and that it could never be intended to initiate Christ's disciples in the belief and worship of God and two creatures P. The new teachers however, in prudence, thought proper to continue the old form of baptizing, till the Eunomians, their successors, being plainer men, or being

m Vid. Tertull. adv. Prax. cap. 26, 27. Hippol. contra Noet. cap. xiv. p. 16.

Vid. Bevereg. Vindic. Can. lib. ii. cap. 6. p. 252. Bingham, Eccles. Antiq. lib. xi. cap. 3. p. 7. • Rom. ix. 5.

PA full account of this argument may be seen in Bishop Stillingfleet on the Trinity, ch. ix. or in my eighth sermon per tot. vol. ii. or in Athanasius, pp. 510, 633. ed. Bened.

weary of a practice contradictory to their principles, resolved at length to set aside the Scripture form, and to substitute others more agreeable to their sentiments 9. This was intimation sufficient to every well-disposed Christian to be upon his guard against the new doctrines, which were found to drive men to such desperate extremities. For now no man of ordinary discernment, who had any remains of godliness left in him, could make it matter of dispute, whether he ought to follow Eunomius or Christ.

There was a further use made of both Sacraments, by way of argument, in the Arian controversy. For when the Arians pleaded, that the words 'I and my Father are one' meant no more than an unity of will or consent, inasmuch as all the faithful were said to be one with Christ and with each other, on account of such unity of consent; the argument was retorted upon them in this manner: that as Christ had made himself really one with us, by taking our flesh and blood upon him in the incarnation; so again he had reciprocally made us really one with himself by the two Sacraments. For in Baptism we put on Christ, and in the Eucharist we are made partakers of his flesh and blood: and therefore the union of Christ's disciples with the Head, and with each other, (though far short of the essential union between Father and Son,) was more than a bare unity of will or consent; being a real, and vital, and substantial union, though withal mystical and spiritual. Thus Hilary of Poictiers (an eminent Father of that time) retorted the argument of the adversaries; throwing off their refined subtilties, by one plain and affecting consideration, drawn from the known doctrine of the Christian Sacraments r.

IX. About the year 360 rose up the sect of Macedonians, otherwise called Pneumatomachi, impugners of the Divinity

Epiphan. Haer. lxxvi. Greg. Nyssen. contr. Eunom. lib. x. p. 278. Theodorit. Haeret. Fab. lib. iv. cap. 3. Socrates, Eccl. Hist. lib. v. cap. 24. Theodorus,

Lect. lib. xi. p. 576. ed. Cant.

r Hilarius de Trinit. lib. viii. p. 951, &c. Cp. Cyrill. Alexandr. de Trin. Dial. i. p. 407.

of the Holy Ghost. They were a kind of Semi-Arians, admitting the Divinity of the second Person, but rejecting the Divinity of the third, and in broader terms than the Arians before them had done. However, the Sacrament of Baptism stood full in their way, being a lasting monument of the true Divinity of the third Person as well as of the second and by that chiefly were the generality of Christians confirmed in the ancient faith, and preserved from falling into the snares of seducers §.

X. About the year 370, or a little sooner, the sect of Apollinarians began to spread new doctrines, and to make some noise in the world. Among sundry other wrong tenets, they had this conceit, that the manhood of our Saviour Christ was converted into or absorbed in his Godhead. For they imagined, that by thus resolving two distinct natures into one, they should the more easily account for the one Person of Christ; not considering that the whole economy of man's redemption was founded in the plain Scripture doctrine of a Saviour both God and man. In opposition to those dangerous tenets, the learned and eloquent Chrysostom (A. D. 405, circ.) made use of an argument drawn from the Sacrament of the Eucharist, to this effect; that the representative body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist (sanctified by Divine grace, but not converted into Divine substance) plainly implied, that the natural body of Christ, though joined with the Godhead, was not converted into Godhead for like as the consecrated bread, though called Christ's body on account of its sanctification, did not cease to be bread; so the human nature of Christ, though dignified with the Divine, did not cease to be the same human nature which it always wast. We may call

• See St. Basil on this argument, De Spiritu Sancto, cap. 10, 12, 27, 29.

Sicut enim, antequam sanctificetur panis, panem nominamus, Divina autem sanctificante gratia,

mediante sacerdote, liberatus est quidem appellatione panis, dignus autem habitus est Dominici corporis appellatione, etiamsi natura panis in ipso permansit; et non duo corpora, sed unum corpus Filii

this either an argument or an illustration; for indeed it is both under different views. Considered as a similitude, it is an illustration of a case: but at the same time is an argument to shew, that the Apollinarians were widely mistaken in imagining that a change of qualities, circumstances, or names, inferred a change of nature and substance. Bread was still bread, though for good reasons dignified with the name of the Lord's Body: and the man Christ was still man, though for good reasons (that is, on account of a personal union) dignified with the title of God. Thus the Sacrament of the Eucharist, being a memorial of the incarnation, and a kind of emblem of it ", was made use of to explain it, and to confirm the faithful in the ancient belief of that important article. But I proceed.

XI. About the year 410, Pelagius opened the prejudices which he had for some time privately entertained against the Church's Doctrine of original sin but the Sacrament of Baptism looked him full in the face, and proved one of the most considerable obstacles to his progress. The prevailing

praedicatur: sic et hic Divina vidpvoάons (id est, inundante) corpori natura, unum Filium, unam Personam, utraque haec fecerunt; agnoscendum tamen inconfusam et indivisibilem rationem, non in una solum natura, sed in duabus perfectis.' Chrysost. Epist. ad Caesar. Monach. pp. 7, 8. ed. Harduin.

As to what concerns this Epistle, and our debates with the Romanists upon it, the reader may consult, if he pleases, besides Harduin, Frid. Spanheim. Opp. tom. i. p. 844. Le Moyne, Varia Sacra, tom. i. p. 530.

Wake's Defence ag. M. de Meaux, printed 1686. Fabricii Bibl. Graec. tom. i. p. 433. Le Quien, Dissert. Damascen. p. 48. et in Notis, p. 270. Zornii Opusc. Sacr. tom. i. p. 727.

u Vid. Justin. Mart. Dial. p. 290. Apol. i. p. 96. ed. Thirlby.

:

N.B. The Eucharist was anciently considered as a kind of emblem of the incarnation, but in a loose general way: for like as there is an heavenly part and an earthly part here, so it is also there; and like as Divine grace together with the elements make the Eucharist, so the Divine Logos with the manhood make God incarnate. But then the analogy or resemblance ought not to be strained beyond the intention of it for there is this observable difference in the two cases; that in one case there is barely a conjunction or concomitance of the two natures, and that to the worthy receivers only: in the other, there is an absolute, permanent, and personal union. So then the Eucharist is but a faint, imperfect emblem of the other.