when he said Drink yee all of this lest the hearers should say Why drinke I blood and eate flesh To keepe them from being troubled at it as they were troubled when many fell off from him he dranke his own blood first himselfe So Titus hath it the Abbreviator of him Isychius on Leviticus 8. as I guesse verse 23. Moses tooke of the blood of the Ramme and put it upon the tip of Aarons right eare and on the thumbe of his right hand and upon the toe of his right foot And verse 24. He did the like afterwards to Aarons Sonnes Not onely on their thumbes but verse 27 He put oyle upon Aarons hands and upon his Sonnes hands Not onely on his hands But verse 30. Moses tooke of the annointing Oyle and of the blood which was on the Altar and sprinckled it upon Aaron first and his garments and upon his Sonnes and his Sonnes Garments and sanctified both Aaron and his Sonnes and their Garments Isychlus addeth Christ in that Supper first dranke his blood Then gave it to his Disciples Yea but it is not read that he ate his Body and dranke his blood Soto answereth It is read that He Tooke the bread He Tooke the Cup and though it must be expounded He Tooke them into his hand or hands yet it is not said He tooke them into his hands onely but He tooke them himselfe as he commanded his Disciples to take them Therefore when he said to them Take eate drinke so when He tooke them it is deducible He did after the same manner eate and drinke The old Rimer before cited is authentique enough in this last point Se tenet in manibus se cibat Ipse cibus Christ in his hands Himselfe did bring The Food and Feeder being one thing Soto bringeth another objection Betweene the Receiver and the thing Received there is a Division But Christ is not divided from himselfe Therefore he could not take himselfe It is answered saith he Christ is not compared to the place by his proper Dimensions but by the Dimensions of the severall Species so that wheresoever They are there is his body and blood Therefore because he had the bread and wine in his mouth and stomach when he ate Them he did eate himselfe And to this there needs no division between the receiver and the received PAR. 2. A Third Objection by him urged is this There is a double eating of the Sacrament Spirituall Sacramentall Christ needed not the spirituall receiving for he received no Grace from the Sacrament The Sacramentall reception is improper proper to sinners onely and so unfit for Christ He answereth with Aquinas Christ received himselfe both Spiritually and Sacramentally And so before Aquinas Alexander Hales settled at last in that opinion For though Christ received no increase of Grace or Charity by the Sacrament because he needed none yet he received a spirituall Taste and sweet enjoying of Delight which are effects of this Sacrament So he tooke it also Sacramentally To take it Sacramentally without increase of Grace hapneth from hence that the Receiver Then is not capable of Grace And this may come to passe two wayes Either because he puts an impediment or block against it as he is a sinner or because a man is so full of Grace that he cannot receive an Increase of Grace as Christ was Much of this discourse proceeded from the learned Dominicus Soto Confessor to Charles the Fist which because he most inlargeth Aquinas I have translated and cleared and inlarged him To conclude let me adde that Christ might well take the blessed Eucharist himselfe for example sake to Teach us what we should doe who may recieve much good by taking it and should imitate him by taking it first our selves before we administer it unto Others For thus did he doe diverse Actions in his life to Teach us to doe the like Gregorius de Valentia Tom. 4. in Tertiam partem Thomae Disputat 6. Quastione 9. Puncto 1. pag. 1095. agreeth with Soto and useth most of his arguments producing nothing of his owne Cajetan in his Commentaries in Tertiam partem Thomae Quaest 82. seemeth to approve Durand for saying That the Apostles though they did concaenare cum Christo yet they did not concelebrare Christ did it by himselfe the Apostles did not assist him in Consecration but he leaveth Aquinas without exposition in the maine point Whether Christ are his owne Body and dranke his own Blood Franciscus Lucas Brugensis on Matth. 26. saith in these words Christus ipse comêdit priusquam discipuli ejus qui tamen non comêdit priusquam pronuntiasset haec verba Hoc est corpus meum Christ did Eate before his Apostles did yet did he not Eate before he had said This is my Body Lastly all the Fathers who say Christ communicated with Iudas are clearely for the Affirmative If by these words My Fathers Kingdome Matth. 26.29 and these The Kingdome of God Mark 14.25 the blessed Eucharist be pointed at and meant as is likely then apparent it is Himselfe dranke of his owne blood in the sacred Eucharist for he professed He would drinke no more of the fruit of the Vine but onely in the holy Eucharist Bishop Lake in his Sermon upon Matth. 26.26 c. saith It may well be presumed that Christ did receive it Himselfe For in his owne person he did sanctifie and honour both Circumcision and the Passcover Also he was baptized and sanctified the water of Jordan Why should we question his Taking of the Eucharist That he did so needed not to be expressed because of the correspondency of This Sacrament to That of the Passeover Indeed Christ needed not partake But by his owne participation he gave vertue to all the Sacraments So he needed not to die for Himselfe but he dyed for us To this effect that holy and learned Prelate now a great Saint in heaven PAR. 3. I Now come to the next points unexpressed 1. What Posture Christ used when he consecrated the Eucharist 2. What Gesture They used when they Tooke it Of which in the seventh Chapter Some there are who say That all the Gestures which we use in religious worship may be brought to Two heads Some belong to Hope as first the Lifting up of the eyes which doe crave or expect some good thing Secondly the Lifting up of the hands to reach at mercy offered or set forth The other Gestures belong to Humiliation as the Uncovering of the head is as the laying downe of the crowne glory and majesty that Man hath and a baring of Mans merit or emptying himselfe of worth to give it to the party worshipped Secondly the beating of the Breast shewing that in it is sin which ought to be expectorated Thirdly Bowing of the Knee which is a great token of the hearts contrition But somewhat is defective in this Dichotomy of which more fully hereafter I returne to the Queres Concerning the first Remember what I writ in the
in the porch of the Temple but onely the Kings of Davids loynes The humble gesture of the Iewes when they came in went out of the Temples The Primitive Church kneeled to the Altars Altars the seats of the body and blood of Christ The Crosse in Chrysostomes dayes did alwayes use to remaine upon the Altar An Angel an assistant when Christ is offered up Ambrose To this day we worship the flesh of Christ in the Sacrament Idem No man eateth the blessed Sacrament before be have worshipped Christ in the Sacrament Augustine Constantine the Emperour in his Soliloquies with God pitched on his knees with eyes cast downe to the ground K. Charles partaketh of the body and blood of Christ with as much Humilitie as the meanest penitent amongst his subjects His holy and devout gestures at the participation of the Lords Supper turned the heart of a Romanist to embrace the truth on our side In Origens Arnobius and Tertullians dayes the Saints never met in holy places about holy things without decent reverence The Papists in kneeling adore the very materials of the Sacrament Yet the abuse of a thing taketh not away the right use Proved by divers curious instances Christians may lawfully use many artificiall things though invented by Heathenish Gods and Goddesses To argue from the Abuse of things to the whole removing of the use is rediculous Illustrated by some particulars Veneration of the Sacrament is accorded on all sides In the very Act of receiving it it is lawfull to kneele downe and worship Christ in it Calvin himselfe holdeth that adoration to be lawfull The Lutherans are divided in this point Illyricus denieth Christ to be worshipped in the Eucharist Brentius and Bucer hold That then we must worship Christs body Luther himselfe stileth the Eucharist Sacramentum venerabile Adorabile Chemnitius saith None but Sacramentaries deny Christ to be adored in the Sacrament Chemnitius acknowledgeth these Theses 1. Christ God Man is to be adored Arrians deny this 2. Christs humane nature for the hypostaticall union with the Divinitie is to be adored None but Nestorians will deny this The Apostles worshipped the Humane Nature of Christ Adoration precedeth Communication by the judgement of S. Chrysostome and S. Augustine Christs flesh as made of earth may be said to be Gods footestoole So is the Arke All the Angels of God doe Worship Christ Christ is to be adored alwayes and every where Augustine Ambrose Nazianzene and Eusebius Emissenus are Chemnitius Co-opinionists Not the materiall Elements but Christ onely in them is to be adored If wee must adore Christ when we celebrate the divine Sacrament much more did the Apostles Habituall not alwayes Actuall Adoration of Christ 〈…〉 â—â—â—â—ired of the Apostles The Apostles worshipped Christ 1 When he had newly performed any Super-humane worke 2 When they begged great matters of him 3 When he did heale some who were vehemently afflicted 4 When he conferred any extraordinary blessing on their soules As hee did when he instituted the new Sacrament Master Hooker tearmeth Kneeling an Adorative gesture No kinde of Worship accepted that is not sometimes conjoyned with Kneeling Gregory Nazianzens Story of his sister Gorgonia Eusebius Emissenus and Origen say Christ is worshipped in the Sacrament Kneeling at the Communion commanded by the Booke of Advertisments set down set forth by Queene Elizabeth by the Lawes of the Realme and the Queenes Majestie Injunctions They defraud the Knees of their chiefest office and honour who refuse to bend them at the receiving of the blessed Sacrament Fol. 645 The Contents of the eight Chapter Par. 1 WHat gesture we are to use at the Administration of it to others Receiving of it our selves Both handled promiscuously The English Liturgie our best guide At the Repeating of the Law the people must kneele Receiving of the same the Israelites did no lesse Never Patriarch Prophet Evangelist Apostle nor holy Man nor Christ himselfe prayed sitting when there Was oportunity of kneeling The Monkes of Egypt did pray sitting The rule of Saint Benedict mentioneth Sitting at the Reading of three Lessons Rising up at Gloria Patri c. Severall gestures are to be used both by Priests and People upon severall occasions The Priests never kneeles while the people stand but he may stand when they kneele Great reason why they should kneele at the receiving of the Body and Blood of Christ No superstition nor idolatry then to kneele but obstinate irreverence if not blaspemy not to kneele Prayer most an end used with bending of the knees The Pharisee stood Christ kneeled when he prayed The Rubricke of the Communion Booke is to be followed by all obediently Fol. 652 Par. 2 The Minister is to deliver the Communion to the people kneeling in both kindes into their Hands Maximus would have Men to wash their hands Women to bring clean linnen that will communicate The nicetie of former times questioned The sixth Synod Canon 3. against it The consecrated bread must be carefully delivered and received To let any crumme or particle thereof fall to the ground accounted a great sinne by Tertullian and Origen Pope Pius the first punished those who let any of the Lords blood fall upon the ground or Altar S. Cyrill of Hierusalem gives a caveat to this purpose Little tables set before the Communicants in former times as now we hold linnen clothes saith Baronius The usuall fashion of receiving the Consecrated bread between the thumb and a finger or two disliked Receiving the holy bread in the Palme of the hand a safer way In Tertullians dayes the Christians did stretch abroad their hands like Christ upon the Craffe in their prayers Damascene would have us receive the body of Christ crucified with our hands framed like to a Crosse The right hand being upward open and hollow to receive the bread This accounted the safer Way Saint Cyril commanded the same kinde of usance Other manner of taking it not sinfull In things indifferent wee must not love singular irregularity All unseemly motions and gestures are so many profanations of the Lords Supper Seven generall rules to be observed against the profanation of the Lords Supper The word Amen explaned and kneeling at receiving the blessed Sacrament pressed Fol. 653 Par. 3 Tenth Generall What Names are given to the blessed Sacrament by the Scriptures and Fathers the Latine and Greeke Church The hallowed bread is called in the Scriptures 1 The Lords body broken for us 2 The Communion of the Body of Christ And the reasons thereof Breaking of bread from house to house 4 Holy bread Blessed bread Eucharisticall bread Heavenly bread Joh. 6. In the Fathers 1 Taking of the Lords body Tertullian 2 Earthly bread sanctified by prayer consisting of Earthly and Heavenly things IreÌ„naeus A Medicine of immortality an antidote against death procuring life purging sinne driving away all evills idem 3 Christs Dole to his Church Tertullian The plenty abundance and fatnesse of the Lords Body The Wine is called in
would not neglect the preaching of the Word of God nor exclude themselves from It to serve Tables In this sense S. Paul said 1 Corinth 1.17 Christ sent me not to Baptize but to preach the Gospel yet both Baptising and Serving at Tables especially the Sacred Ones were divine offices Christ was given for us in the Sacrifice was given to us in the Sacrament In the first per modum victimae as an offring in the last per modum epuli as Bishop Andrews hath it as in a Banquet Who knoweth not Banquets are commonly set on Tables In the Feastings of our great Ones you may perhaps find out the Jewish fashion of Feastings For as oft times our people arise when the first and second courses are removed and other meat and messes carried away and go to another Table and Banquet of Sweet-meats as the close of all So very well may it be that when Judas was excluded out of that room and gone down staires and forth of doores Christ and his Apostles might arise from their former Feasting and at another Table apply themselves to this Sacred banquet of the Holiest Heavenliest Sweet-meat since more devotion was required at this most Sacred food than at their other repast of which hereafter Besides I desire to see one proofe where ever any of Christs Apostles or any Jew of those times did feed from the Ground Floore or Pavement when they did eat in any house well-furnished I cannot omit another place 1 Cor. 10.21 Ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and of the Table of Devils That the Apostle speaketh of the sacred Eucharist in the first place appeareth by the precedent verses The Cup of blessing which wee blesse is it not the Communion of the Blood of Christ The Bread which wee breake is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ vers 17. Here are both Species both Kinds Christ blessed the Cup and so do we before and in the Consecration and this is the Communion of Christs blood Giving of thanks preceded consecration The Heathen had Altars on which they made offrings to their Gods the Devils and they had also Tables from which they did participate of things Offered It was lawfull to go to the Tables and Feasts of the Gentiles and to eate whatsoever was set before them 1. Cor. 10.27 But they might not approach to the Pagan Altars to partake of them Nor eat any thing in Idolio in the Idols Temple Nor 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 As a thing offred to Idols no though a man did but say so vers 28. Yet Christians partaked even of the Sacrifices which were upon and taken from the Heathen Altars on which they were Sacrificed if they knew it not as the Gentiles and Jews also Deuteronomy 18.1 c. though not Altars but Tables were principally ordained to eat upon Yet they who waited at the Altar are partakers with the Altar 1 Cor. 9.13 Christ could not expect an Altar in an upper chamber of a private man Altars were no part of chamber-furniture The Jews might have no other permanent Altars after their setting in Hierusalem bu two The Altar of Incense and the Altar of Sacrifice Christ may be said in a sort to be the Altar the Offring and the Priest when he was Sacrificed on the Crosse Other than a Metaphoricall Altar he used not he was not The poore mans box or chest shall be set neare to the high Altar Injunction the 29. But he consecrated the saving Eucharist on a Table and therefore is it called the Lords Table And because Christ did so all other Christians were the apter to do so and for a while called the Church-Altars Tables in reference to Christs first Institution upon a Table For in times of persecution they could well use none but Tables and therefore doth the Primitive Church oft call them Tables and seldome Altars unto which they were not admitted to administer the Sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord. Nor did they carry Altar or Altars from house to house from City to City from Countrey to Countrey as they Communicated in severall Houses in severall Cities and Countreys and for a while daily so communicated but used the Tables such as they were made by Art wheresoever they came Nor perhaps did they stand on the particular consecration either of Tables or of Cups and Vessels to hold the Body and Blood of Christ but in the fiery furnace of persecution were content sometimes to make use of such things as could be had and rather made them holy than found them holy But he who from hence will think that the name of Altar is unlawfull or of a late invention or that they were excluded from Christian Churches or that there were Tables allowed and every where set up in the Churches Or that Altars were destroyed generally or for the most part Or that even Altars themselves were not sometimes called Tables with an eye to Christs first institution Or that will cry-up Tables to cry-down Altars He knoweth not the different usances of the Church in times of persecution and cut of it but taketh advantage of words to set asunder things which well may stand together and runneth with a strong by as to his own works Neither would I have my speciall friend to precipitate himselfe into the other extreame or so to fix his mind on Altars so to undervalew Tables as to maintain or publish that Christ did not celebrate the Heavenly Eucharist on a Table and that he instituted it on a plain Floore or pavement which opinion I think was scarce ever heard off a thousand yeares after the first Institution of the Sacrament The extract or exempt especially appropriated to our purpose is this Not only the Devils in a kind of imitation of God Almighty this worship had by the Heathen Tables erected and consecrated to them of which they took part and were allowed their divident or portion on which they fed sometimes in the Temples of their Idols sometimes at home But even the holy Christians in their best perfection had diverse Tables on which they did administer the Lords Supper and partaked of the holy Communion and they were called the Tables of the Lord. For the Lord himselfe and his holy Ones a long time after him administred the blessed Eucharist on Tables PAR. 6. THe second point held probable was and is The holy Eucharist was administred by Christ on a Table different and variant from the Paschall and Ordinary Supper-Table Object Yea but what proofes have you for that Sol. I answer what proofes have you to the contrary And why was not the Heavenly food consecrated on a distinct Table Or which opinion is like-liest In this so uncertaine a point we are not forbidden but rather commanded to search for the truth 1 John 4.1 Beleeve not every spirit but try the spirits whether they are of God 2 Thess 2.2 Be not soon shaken in mind or troubled But 1 Thess 4.21 Prove
be understood when they say The holy Eucbarist is to be adored 2. Reasons proving that the Apostles received the blessed Eucharist Kneeling 1. Reason Most sacred Reverence is to be exhibited to most sacred things 2. Reason The Fathers of the Primitive Church received it Kneeling 3. Kneeling doth edifie the simple 4. It is an Ecclesiasticall custome The manner of Reverence used both by Priests and Lay people in S. Chrysostomes dayes God will be worshipped aswell in our body as in our Spirit The Penitents in Tertullians time did Kneele down at the receiving of Absolution And it was the common practise of all other Christians in his dayes to worship God Kneeling Except from Easter to Whitsontide and on the Lords day Diverse of holier times had Knees as hard as horne by their continuall Kneeling at Gods worship An adminition to stiffe-kneed Pure-trants 3. Reasons why the devouter sort did forbeare Kneeling betwixt Easter and Whitsontide 1. The Church did so appoint it 2. Hereby the people did shew themselves thankefull Whitsunday whence it hath its denomination Kneeling imports Repentance and Sorrow for Sins Standing implies Thankesgiving for the pardon of our sins The diverse usances of diverse Churches in the Primitive times concerning Fasting and Feasting on the Lords day Kneeling and Standing at the time of Prayer and the Reasons thereof In the Primitive Church they baptized not any except the Sick but at Easter and Whitsontide The newly baptized stood to expresse their Thankefulnesse to God for their baptisme The people in some Churches Stood praying at the Altar on every Sunday between Easter and Whitsontide in remembrance of Christs Resurrection The Christians in the Primitive Church prayed Recto vultu ad Dominum to confront the Heathen who fell down flat on their Faces when they adored their false Gods 4. The great variations of the Primitive Churches concerning the Eating or not Eating of flesh offered to Idols A just discourse to that purpose A good Rule for the peace of the Church Why our Church hath commanded Kneeling at the receiving of the blessed Sacrament when the Primitive Church hath commanded Standing Churches have great power committed unto them The Church upon just motives may change her Orders The meaner sort of all people Ecclesiasticall and Civill are bound to obedience are not to Order Peter Moulin found fault with the precise Ministers of our Church of England The day of Christs Resurrection the first day of his Joy after his Dolorous passions Why the Fathers made Sunday their Holy-day Why they forbade Kneeling and Fasting upon that day What Indifferency is according to S. Hierome A thing Indifferent in it selfe being commanded by the Supreame Magistrate or Church is no longer Indifferent to thee Variety of Ceremonies not hurtfull but beneficiall to the Church of Christ. The Bishop of Rome taxed by Cardinall Palaeotus excused Rome Christian in too many things imitateth Rome Heathen In publique prayer commeth short of it Heathen Rome began all their businesse in the world with this Prayer Quod foelix faustumque sit c. The greater power the Pope and his Cardinalls have the more need they have to pray to God before their publique meetings in their Consistory Kneeling at receiving the holy Eucharist never disliked as a thing of its owne nature evill or unlawfull In the Primitive Church After Whitsontide they used to kneele Kneeling at the blessed Sacrament not prescribed by Scripture but authorized by Tradition confirmed by Custome observed by Faith In the Primitive Church when they received the Sacrament Standing Kneeling they Prayed Standing Kneeling Our Factionists would follow the Primitive Church in one thing but leave her in another 5. A third Reason At the first Institution of things Sacred Profane the solemnity is greater than in the sequell Every New thing hath a golden tayle Proverbe Popular Lecturers have sunke even below scorne All sinnes of former times have descended downe upon our dayes An Epiphonêma or Exclamation against the profane pretenders of Devotion now adayes The lowest humiliation is too little for the house of God They cryed Abrech or Bow the knee before Joseph He that boweth himselfe most before men is most right in the sight of God Diverse examples of Prostration and Geniculation both out of the Old and New Testament A Vice-Roy of Ireland devoutly fell on his knees and asked an Archiepiscopall Benediction The Heathen kneeled downe to worship their very Idols S. Hieromes saying By Kneeling we sooner obtaine what we aske at the hands of God Not lawfull for Any to sit in the porch of the Temple but onely the Kings of Davids loynes The humble Gesture of the Iewes when they came In went out of the Temple The Primitive Church Kneeled to the Altars Altars the seats of the body and blood of Christ. The Crosse in Chrysostomes dayes did alwayes use to remaine upon the Altar An Angel an assistant when Christ is offered up Ambrose To this day we Worship the Flesh of Christ in the Sacrament Idem No man eateth the blessed Sacrament before he have Worshipped Christ in the Sacrament Augustine Constantine the Emperour in his Soliloquies with God pitched on his knees with eyes cast downe to the ground K. Charles partaketh of the body and blood of Christ with as much Humilitie as the meanest penitent amongst his Subjects His holy and devout Gestures at the participation of the Lords Supper turned the heart of a Romanist to embrace the truth on our side In Origens Arnobius and Tertullians dayes the Saints never met in holy places about holy things without decent reverence The Papists in Kneeling adore the very materialls of the Sacrament Yet the Abuse of a thing taketh not away the right use Proved by diverse curious instances Christians may lawfully use many artificiall things though invented by Heathenish Gods Goddesses To argue from the Abuse of things to the whole remooving of the use is ridiculous Illustrated by some particulars Veneration of the Sacrament is accorded on all sides In the very Act of Receiving it it is lawfull to Kneele downe and worship Christ In it Calvin himselfe holdeth That Adoration to be lawfull The Lutherans are divided in this point Illyricus denieth Christ to be Worshipped in the Eucharist Brentius and Bucer hold That then we must worship Christs body Luther himselfe styleth the Eucharist Sacramentum venerabile Adorabile Chemnitius saith None but Sacramentaries deny Christ to be Adored in the Sacrament Chemnitius acknowledgeth these Theses 1. Christ God and Man is to be Adored Onely Arrians deny this 2. Christs humane nature for the hypostaticall union with the Divinitie is to be Adored None but Nestorians will deny this The Apostles worshipped the Humane Nature of Christ Adoration procedeth Cemmunication by the judgement of S. Chrysostome and S. Augustine Christs Flesh as made of Earth may be said to be Gods footstoole So is the Arke All the Angels of God doe Worship Christ Christ is to be Adored alwaies and everywhere
come nigh the vessels of the Sanctuary and the Altar that neither they nor you also dye No lesse then death is menaced if the Levites come nigh the Altar which they must doe if they sacrificed aright Both may be well reconciled thus first I say that the ordinary continued duty was committed by God to the Priests onely and the Levites by their place were not to meddle in sacrifices yet if Levites were divinely inspired by God to doe so they might and did so did Samuel a Levite offer a whole burnt offering d 1 Sam. 7.9 and in exigents the priests were helped by the Levites e 2 Chro. 29.35 2 Chron. 29.35 The priests were so few that they could not flay all the burnt offerings wherefore their brethren the Levites did helpe them till the worke was ended now the flaying of beasts belonged to the priests the sonnes of Aaron f Levit. 1.6 Levit 1.6 As this upon extremity was practized by the Levites so were the other duties also and Salianus saith well in this point Nunc ex necessitate duntaxat propter multitudinem victimarum non ex officio id munus usurpabant Not the place or office of Levites but necessity priviledged them for this time and for this Worke. PAR. 8. LEt me adde when priests and Levites were too few when Sacrifices were superabundant as in the Iewish passeovers which were to bee killed on a set moneth on a set day of that moneth on a set houre towards the end of the day on the first part of that houre when all the Lambes could not be brought nigh the doore of the Tabernacle not onely every Levite chiefe of an house but every Master of a Family was allowed to be as a priest for that time his servants as under Levites his house as a Temple That this was one true reason of communication of that power to the Levites and the people appeareth by the contrary practice when the Sacrifices were few when they kept the passeover g Ezr. 9.19 Ezr. 6.19 The Priests and the Levites were purifyed together all of them were pure and killed the Passeover for all the children of the captivity and for their brethren the Priests and for themselves the Priests and Levites killed all the Lambes h see 2 Chron. 29.21 likewise The sonnes of Aaron offered a sin-offering for the Kingdome and the Sanctuary and for Iudah for the number of the sacrifices was but 21 and they killed the bullockes and received the blood and sprinkled it on the Altar but when the Sacrifices and Thanke-offerings encreased when the priests were too few the Levites helped as the Scripture said before yet if the people were unpure they might nor they did not use their priviledge their prerogative ceased and not the impure people themselves but the Clerus Dei must reconcile the people the Levites had the charge of killing the passeovers for every one that was not cleane to sanctify them unto the Lord i 2 Chro. 30 17 2 Chro. 30.17 Yet did the onely right in ordinary belong to the priests to which sacrificing of beasts by the priests Christ alluded k Math. 12.5 Math. 12.5 When he said on the Sabbath dayes the priests in the Temple prophane the Sabbath which is more forcible then if he had said they observe not the Sabbath because God commanded their Sabbaticall duty of sacrificing l Num. 28 9. Num. 28.9 c. Which not Levites but priests fulfilled m Levit. 1. Levit 1.6 PAR. 9. THey prophane the Sabbath not simply but by an improper locution because if eyther Priests or any others had killed flayed or cut a sunder any beasts any where else it had beene a sinne but the law priviledgeth the Temple from the Law of the Sabbath the wiser Jewes held in Templo non esse Sabbatum there is no Sabbath in the Temple and a rule they have that Circumcision chaseth away the Sabbath for it was exactly kept on the eight day though the eight day happened to be the Sabbath it sanctified all the laborious workes of mens hands done in it done to the worship of God and his service which is perfect freedome makes those handy-workes lose their name of servile workes Away then with those halfe-Jewes strict Sabbatarians who will not have bells rung on the Sabbath dayes nor water carryed in pitchers or payles to fill the font nor the raw ayre of the Church to bee sweetned with frankincense perfumes or wholesome odours nor the decent ornaments of the Priests to be put on they are ignorant that the Temple priviledgeth if not sanctifieth such workes and what is done in ordine ad Deum as tending towards the worship of God is no way forbidden when their imperiall censoriousnesse and scorne the daughters of pride are forbidden for never had the common people libertie to judge their Priests oh how humble was Hannah to erring Ely The heathen were very strict in keeping of their Holy-dayes yet saith e Macrob. Sturnal 1.16 Macrobius Vmbro denyed him to be polluted qui opus vel ad deos pertinens sacrorumve causâ fecisset vel aliquid ad urgentem vitae utilitatem respiciens actitasset Scaevola denique consultus quid Ferijs agiliceret respondit quod praetermissum noceret Wherefore if an Oxe fell into any dangerous place and the master of the family did helpe him out or if a man under propped a broken beame of an house to keepe it from ruine hee seemed not to breake the holy day saith Scaevola which words I have the rather related to shew not onely as f Clem. Alex. Strom. 5. Clemens Alexandrinus hath it Philosophia peripatetica ex lege Mosaicâ aliis dependet Prophetis but even the very Roman Priests borrowed much of Moses his Law and in likelihood even from the Gospell his particular instance that mercy is to be shewed to the Oxe in need g Luk. 14.5 Luk. 14.5 Which of you shall have an Oxe fallen into a pit and will not straight way pull him out on the Sabbath day which is all one with that which Scaevola delivereth after to the Romans PAR. 10. ANd now I come to the seventh extraordinary great Passeover when the Israelites came out of the Babylonish captivitie for the Passeover appointed in Ezekiel was onely in Vision where there is mention indeed of the first moneth and foureteenth day of unleavened bread Seven dayes and other offerings for the feast to be provided by the Prince h Exek 45.21 Ezek. 45.21 but what Ezechiel fore prophefied was not accomplished in his time but about 150. yeares after it was performed by Ezra which is the last famous Passeover specialized in the old Testament when they were freed from bondage and had dedicate the Temple i Ezra 6.19 Ezra 6.19 they kept the passeover for all the children of the captivitie and for their brethren the Priests and for themselves And so much for the seven
They ate the Passeover in great haste with their loynes girt 29. Loose hanging vestments used ordinarily by the Iewes Close well-girt apparell on speciall occasions 30. Their haste is proved from their being shod the Hypallage of Calceamenta in pedibus instead of pedes in Calceamentis paralleled 31. Going barefoote was a signe of sorrow 32. Wearing of shooes or sandals betokened haste 33. The staffe in their hand did argue their haste 34. In their hand these words doe not signifie that their staves were never out of their hands 35. Iacobs staffe passing over Jordane 36. The usefulnesse of a staffe 37. The Talmudists say it was not eaten in such haste ever after 38. Nor was there any need of such haste 39. A two fold haste simple and comparative 40. The words Exod. 12.25 Ye shall keepe this service denote rather the substantialls then the Accidentalls of the Passeover 41. A specious objection that all the precepts of the Passeover were to be kept the answere thereunto from a knowne distinction from the authority of Maimonides from other learned Christians Skilled in Hebrew Criticisme from the sacred Text. PARAGRAPH 1. THe last Passeover which Christ kept comes now to be handled what our most blessed Saviour did six dayes before the passeover see most exactly and curiously set downe in each particular in Christs Itinerary made by a Franc. Lucas Brugens in Itinera p. 16. 17 Franciscus Lucas Brugensis pag. 16. and 17. and b Selneccer fol. 440. c. Christian Padagog Selneccerus in his Christian Paedagogy fol. 440. c. The absolute full manner how he received that last Jewish Passeover cannot be perfectly understood many many things are omitted I doubt not but more is omitted then written or infallibly deducible from things written we have no surer rule then the Jewish observation of eating the Passeover in the dayes of our Saviour for as I sayd before certainly hee transgressed not the Law here Reader siste gradum stay and consider because inopina are graviora I give thee warning I will not goe the nigher way into Canaan which I could in a short time but with the Israelites by the conduct of a pillar of smoake and a pillar of fire I intend God willing to lead thee to and thorough Iordan yea thorough the deepe Seas on dry foot thorough the thorny and troublesome Wildernesse up hill and downe hill adversaries on every side if thou wilt walke along with me I doubt not but God will vouchsafe unto us both Manna and Quayles which shall fit thy taste being most heavenly food in comparison of the Garlicke Onyons and Flesh-pots of Aegypt if thou faintest give over returne leave me to God my guide and to my industrious companions neither shall we ever contentedly finde out what the Jewes of our Saviours time did observe in the eating of the Passeover till we have handled these two points First what they were to doe expressely Secondly what they did voluntarily performe without particular precept In the first point let us weigh these two parts First what was temporary and peculiar to the first Passeover Secondly what was eternally observable during the Law Mosaicall In the first Section of the first part these were the particular ceremonies annexed to the first Mosaicall Passeover 1. They had a libertie to chuse a Lambe or Goate 2. They praepared it foure dayes before hand 3. They strooke the blood upon the doores and posts of their houses 4. They ate the Passeover in haste which was onely in Aegypt saith Maimonides At other times they had not so great cause to eate it speedily and other Ceremonies depend on this 5. They went not out of doores 6. They who had small families were to fill the company from the next house PARA 2. THe first Section in the first part of the first point is this the Jewes had a libertie to choose either Lambe or Goate for the Aegyptian or Mosaicall first passeover PAR 3. TO say as Paulus Brugensis doth that a Lambe and a Kid are all one or they might not offer a Kid as others impute unto him is ridiculous for the disjunctive is observable c Exod. 12.5 Exod 12.5 ye shall take it out from the sheepe or from the goates Two distinct words in the originall both might be either might be neither is excluded There are two memorable places often to be used in this treatise proving that divers sorts of Cattle and beasts were offered at the passeover d Deut. 16.2 Deut. 16.2 Thou shalt sacrifice the Passeover unto the Lord thy God of the flocke and of the herd more apparantly and distinctly e Num. 28.19 Num. 28.19 And two young Bullockes and one Ramme seven Lambes of the first yeare without blemish and one Goate besides the burnt offerings in the morning vers 23. PAR. 4. SO f 2 Chro. 35.13 2 Chron 35.13 other divers holy offerings they had at the passeover but they differed much from the Paschall Lambe For first they roasted the passeover with fire but other holy offerings they sod ibidem Secondly the Paschall Lambe was killed the even or night before and eaten or burnt with fire e're morning but the other feast offerings continued divers dayes usque ad finem septemdialis Festi 3. None of the other Sacrifices Bullockes Heyfers Goates or Kids c. no nor other Lambe or Lambes themselves which were offered and eaten after the first night though offered on the Feast of passeover was the Paschall Lambe but rather Paschall Sacrifices and the matter of feasting with much joy and not celebrated with so ardent devotion as the Paschall Lambe insomuch that the whole Feast seemes to have the denomination from the Paschall Lambe the first dish of that Feast the especiall type of Christ and fore-runner and type of our Sacrament Likewise one Kid of the Goates was commanded to be offered for a Sinne-offering in the beginning of their moneths g Num. 28.15 Num. 28.15 in Festo Calendarum Noviluniis or new Moones or Neomenian Festivities therefore against Brugensis it is most apparent a Lambe and a Kid were not all one one was offered at one time and another at another time and both sometimes in one Feast and a Kid might be the peculiar passeover in Aegypt the Jewes themselves generally agree that not a Goate but a Lambe was ever after their Paschall oblation in token of their great delivery PAR. 5. THough a most specious objection to the contrary ariseth h 2 Chro. 35.7 2 Chron. 35.7 where the holy King Josiah gave to the people thirty thousand Lambes Ob. and Kids all for the passeover offerings yet it is thus fairely allayed Sol. He saith not expressely neither can deduction lead that Kids were then the proper passeover but both Lambes Kids and Bullocks are for the universall paschall offerings of that Feast as is in the same verse reckoned all together as the magnificent donary of that good King though the
of his garments Psal 133.2 l Psal 133.2 For this trickled from his bloodyed head crowned with sharpe thornes his indented and as it were furrowed backe by the tearing whips and rods his broad-wounded side so broad that Thomas the Apostle put his hand into it l Ioh 20.27 Joh. 20.27 his pierced or rather digged hands and feete for so the Hebrew will beare it Psal 22.16 I saw trickled even to the ground this is a better sprinkling then all the Leviticall sprinklings for by it our hearts are now sprinkled from an evill conscience In the old Law all parts of their doores were sprinkled with blood to turne away the Apolyon or Abaddon the destroying Angell but the thresholds of their doores were not bloodied m Heb. 10.22 by which omission perhaps was signified that no sacred or holy thing should be cast on the ground or troden under feete which truth our Saviour divinely ratifieth n Matth 7.6 Matth. 7.6 Give not that which is holy unto dogges neither cast yee your pearles before Swine lest they trample them under their feete neither doe I remember any where that the Threshold or the ground were sprinkled in any of the Leviticall Services but men and all the people a Heb 9.13 19. Heb. 9.13 and 19. and the booke in the same verse and the Tabernacle and all the vessells of the Ministery vers 21. but Christ spirituale illud ostium that spirituall doore was sprinkled all over with blood and by the blood sprinkling of him we are saved from the exterminator or destroying Angell Two things more let me observe eâ—re I shake hands with this point first that onely one doore they did strike with blood on the two side-posts and on the upper doore-post of the houses b Exod. 12.7 Exod. 12.7 the doore in the singular throughout all the Chapter yet doore of houses and vers 13. posternes backe-doores or other out-lets needed not to be stricken with blood but as I guesse onely the great streete doore or fore doore or the doore in the high way of the death inflicting Angell Secondly this type must be cast into the number of those types which were soone to fade away and were never performed but once as the offering up of Isaack as Jonah's resemblance as Sampsons carrying away the gates of Gazah and the figure of the Lyon and the Bees out of the eater came meate out of the strong came sweetnesse other Types of our Saviour were yearely monethly weekely daily to be performed as sacrifices and the like PAR. 18. IT may be the witty Hannibal had heard how the destroying Angell was to passe over the houses marked with blood and in part imitated it for he commanded the Tarentines to keepe within doores and write their names on the doores all houses whose doores were not written upon he pillaged and gave over to direption so d Livius lib. 25 Livius and Polybius specializeth the incription Tarentini that was the ward-word I am sure Master George Sandys in the relation of his travailes begun Anno 1610. saith thus during our abode at Cairo in Egypt fell out the feast of their Byram when in their private houses they slaughter a number of sheepe which cut in gobbets they distribute unto their slaves and poorer sort of people besmearing their doores with their blood perhaps in imitation of the Passeover so farre hee PAR. 19. THe fourth ceremony peculiar to the first Paschatizing was They ate their Passeover in haste I shall proceede too hastily if I doe not distinguish on the word haste haste is twofold simple comparative they ate the first Passeover simply in all haste possible God commanded it time place and the occasions so required it and accordingly they performed it And in this first Passeover 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in haste doth involve tremulous fearefull suddaine and confused motions upon the apprehension of some solid great danger Mephibosheth's nurse fled in haste and in the flight lamed him e 2 Sam. 4.4 2 Sam. 4.4 The Syrians fled in haste and cast away their vessells and their garments f 2 King 7.15 2 King 7.15 Concerning the second kind of haste I say they are the Passeover ever after in haste yet not absolutely but onely referentially in respect of their slower eating of their common meales or in respect of their continued feasting at other Sacrifices which were eaten with grave majesty and devour during solemnities In Egypt they ate that passeover in confused haste caused through danger and feare the same radix is used Deut. 20.3 Deut. 20.3 doe not tremble or doe not haste which words are Synonyma's in the judgement of our last translatours and the immediate consequents prove that terrours weÌ„re annexed to such haste PAR. 20. IN the like haste was it never eaten afterwards for they had not the same cause of terrour or spurre to hasten them yet for ever after they might eate it in more haste then their ordinary food and that first in remembrance of their prime praesident Secondly as it was a Sacrifice or a Sacrament not to be retarded or demurred upon too long thirdly because it was as a preparatory or antipast to a second supper A sacred messe beginning with sower herbes their Paschall Festivalls which in Deuteronomy God enjoyned of which volente Deo more hereafter where I say the eating of the Passeover in the fore-described haste was peculiar to the first passeover in that one proposition two are involved one affirmative the other negative the affirmative that it was eaten speedily then and very speedily the negative it was never after eaten in such haste as the first was for then it would be of peculiar more common and indeed not peculiar Gratia quae datur omnibus non est gratia a courtesie done to all is no especiall favour done to any one Concerning the positive or assertive part thus that it was commanded to bee eaten in haste is notified g Exod 12.11 Exod. 12.11 yee shall eate it in Festinatione or Festinanter in haste or hastily that the things commanded were sutably performed is also evidenced ver 28. the Israelites did as the Lord commanded Moses and Aaron which is most remarkeably repeated so did they certainely Moses forepropecied to Pharaoh and it came to passe h Exod 11.8 Exod. 11.8 All these thy servants shall bow downe themselves unto me saying get thee out and all the people that follow thee therefore the Aegyptians did humbly beg them to goe forth in haste PAR. 21. IOsephus saith Iosephus lib. 2. cap. 5. the Aegyptians went by troupes to the Kings palace crying out that the Israelites might be suffered to depart and as certaine it is the Aegyptians were urgent upon the people that they might send them out of the Land in haste Exod. 12.33 Exod. 12.33 And the Israelites were thrust out of Egypt and could not tarry neither had they prepared for themselves any victualls
before Ahab He girded up his loynes b 1 Kin. 18.46 1 Kin. 18.46 Gird up thy loynes said Elisha to his servant c 2 King 4.29 2 King 4.29 when he sent him in haste When Peter was commanded d Act. 12.7 Act. 12.7 To arise up quickely he was also then commanded First to gird himselfe then to bind on his sandalls ver 8. Which is another preparative to travaile and the second hastening ceremony enjoyned to the way-fareing Israelites PAR. 30. THey were also to eate this Passeover with shooes on their feete as our last Translators well expound their meaning indeed if you weigh the words in the originall there is an Hypallage they seeme to crosse and contrary the sense Habebitis calceamenta in pedibus ye shall have shooes on your feete instead of this habebitis pedes in Calceamentis ye shall have your feete in your shooes but this is cleared by the Hebrew Idiotisme otherwhere e Iudg. 20.48 Judg. 20.48 Miserant civitates omnes in ignem where the Scripture intends onely this miserant ignem in omnes civitates they fired all the Cities I will not nicely stand on the difference betweene Calceamenta and Sandalia Shooes and Sandales A shooe was more compleate than a sandall and of more defence for the foote PAR. 31. GOing bare-foote that I may presse to the poynt was a signe of much sorrow assumed by David when out of question he might have had shooes or Sandales to expresse his wofull expulsion from his owne Countrey by his rebellious son f 2 Sam. 15.30 Isa 20.2 3 4. 2 Sam. 15.30 And distressed captives used it in their bondage in another Countrey Isay 20.2 3 4. verses PAR. 32. BUt wearing shooes or Sandals betokened also a readinesse to be walking g Isa 5.27 Mar. 6.9 Isay 5.27 Mar. 6 9. The Apostles in visiting the places of their jurisdiction were allowed by Christ to be shod with sandals as the Israelites here were to have shooes on their feete as a token of their preparation for their speedy Exodus or forth-going Neither had the twelve Apostles onely at their Mission a kinde of conformity for their feet with the twelve Tribes at their setting forth for Canaan from Aegypt but both sorts were commanded to have a staffe the Apostles had so h Mar. 6.8 Mar. 6.8 And the Israelites i Exod. 12.11 Exod. 12.11 PAR. 33. THe third ceremony of their preparednesse to their journey was that they were also to have a staffe in their hand and that not to set up in a corner not out of sight safely kept not lying by them or among their carriages but in their hand PAR. 34. YEt by these words in their hand I would have none to thinke that they never left holding their staffe in one hand or other during the eating of that Passeover for then they must have eaten it very unhandsomely and both cut and eate with one hand onely at one time which would have hindred and prolonged their supper rather then shortned it But here this is reckoned as a speed-making ceremony and therefore if now and then or for the most while they held the staffe in their hands and yet now and then let it rest or leane on it for the nimbler dispatch of their supper the intent of the Law was fulfilled PAR. 35. A Staffe in their hand perhaps to put them in minde that as Jacob passed over Jordan with his staffe k Gen. 32.10 Gen. 32.10 So should they with their staves the Israelites doing as their Father Israel did PAR. 36. BEsides a staffe in a mans hand secureth his footing preventeth sliding or falling It is an ornament to youth a crutch yea a very third legge to age it is a stay to the whole body it helpeth naturall infirmities and accidentall occurrences l Zach. 8.4 Zach. 8.4 Every man with his staffe in his hand for very age And so much for the first assertive part That the first Passeover was eaten in haste in great haste absolutely PAR. 37. THat it was not eaten in such hast ever after the Talmudists strongly averre m Beza ad Mat. 26.20 Beza saith that the sprinkling of the blood upon the doore posts the eating the passeover in haste with shooes on the men being girded with staves in their hands were practised onely this one night of the first passeover and in this saith he all the Jewish Doctors doe fully agree PAR. 38. ANd indeed what needed the sprinkling of the posts with blood when no Angell was to destroy and when they had no doore-posts in the Wildernesse to be sprinkle What needed their loynes to be girded when they were at rest What needed shooes on their feete when they mooved not nor needed to move What needed a staffe in their hand when no journey was toward What needed eating in extraordinary haste when there was no danger nor trouble nor discontent nor offence growing by the stay or by the eating leisurely or cum decenti pausâ The prime reason why they were commanded to eate in haste with those un-retarding ceremonies being to prevent imminent mischiefes arising from delayes which was not so nor likely nor scarse possible to be so in succeeding ages we may fairely conclude they did not in any future times commonly use these posting ceremonies but they were proper to their first Paschatizing This is undenyable the quickning ceremonies were neither repeated nor commanded at the reviving of the Law Levit. 23. Nor can be shewed to be precepted or practized at any other Passeover in any other place of the Old or New Testament PAR. 39. ANd so much sufficeth to have spoken of eating the first passeover in haste in great haste simply with its running moving ceremonies appropriated to it and never after in such perplexed speech performed though ever after the passeover was eaten in more haste then common food or the food sacred at other Festivities in haste not absolute but referentiall PAR. 40. THough it be said n Exod. 12.25 Exod. 12.25 When ye be come to the Land which the Lord shall give you ye shall keepe this service yet the words have no alliance with the immediately preceding transeunt ceremonies of sprinkling of blood which is of all men confessed to have ended for ever in the night of their departure and therefore by parity of reason the words comprehend not the other temporary ceremonies but onely extend to the maine businesse to the substantialls rather then the Accidentals to the durable and not to the vanishing short occasionall observances To the Reall Sacrifice to the Lords passeover as it is called ver 27. and not to the partly Semi-diarian partly Vespernall fading rites of one night All which were begotten borne living dying dead and buryed within twelve houres which rituall shadowes comparatively deserve not the great name of Gods worship the word is in the Originall Hagnabadah translated by the 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and
Latria is the highest part of Gods service Santandreanus and Hentenius doe ill to render it Ceremonyes the more learned and wise Montanus in his Interlineary expounded it opus a worke opus hoc this Worke which is very well expressed by our last translators ye shall keepe this service And the service is to be denominated from the major or better part from the chiefe worke rather then from the appendant rites PAR. 41. AN objection more and that seemingly a strong one against mine opinion is a Num. 9.3.12 Num. 9.3.12 Where we read Ob. Ye shall keepe the Passeover according to all the rites of it and according to all the ceremonies thereof shall ye keepe it and according to all the ordinances of the Passeover ver 12. Now though the Words Rites and Ordinances are divers translations of one reading in the places above cited yet there are also two distinct words in the Hebrew one for the Rites another for the Ceremonies the Interlineary renders them Statuta and Iudicia Statutes and Iudgements the vulgar of Hentenius and Santandreanus Ceremonias Iustificationes Ceremonies and Iustifications Statuta rationes as Tremellius the 70. have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and in the 14. verse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 from which diversity and extent of words may seeme to be inferred that not onely the lasting and more necessary Rites of the Passeover were re-appointed but the minutest Ceremonies the least tittle of them must be still observed and therefore the eating with loynes girded with staffe in hand with shooes on their feete were not peculiar to the first passeover but were re-observed at this second passeover the yeare following I answer Sol. the Scripture full often restraineth the word all to all of some one kind to all that are necessary to all that were to endure to all that were convenient Iuxta omne quod convenit ei as the Chaldee Paraphrase hath it Secondly looke over the whole Chapter and you shall find none of the Ceremonies before mentioned of being shod girt and having staves once mentioned but there is expresse mention of the moneth the day of the moneth and the time of the day towards even also they were appointed to use unleavened cakes and bitter herbes and nothing was to remaine nor a bone to be broken And these were of the lasting ceremonies all other I say all other of the same kinde that were to continue as that it must be a male Lambe not above a yeare roasted and with a competent company of receivers and the like are involved and included in the diversity of words in the seeming universality cited in the objection But it cannot sinke into my head that by these varyed words and repeated all b Num. 9.3 Num. 9.3 Was ever intended they should chuse their offering foure dayes before and sprinkle the doore-posts with blood when they had few or no doore-posts perhaps scarse Tents some of them or that they must eate it girt shod with staves in their hands or the like hastening ceremonies Maimonides having used this very objection Maimonides in Korhan Pesach c. 10. Sect. 15. in the end resolveth that the choosing of the Lambe on the tenth day the sprinkling of blood with a branch of Hyssope and the eating in haste to which the three fore-cited Ceremonies concurre were not necessary in future times but were drowned before they had passed the red Sea and that the Commandements c Num. 9.3 12. Num. 9.3 and 12. concerne the body and substance of the passeover not the minuter Circumstances In the learned Annotations on the Pentateuch Imprinted by Robert Stephen at Paris 1541. the words Iuxta ritus suos omnes ceremonias suas celebrabitis illud i. according to its Rites and all its Ceremonies shall ye observe it are thus expounded Celebrabitis illud observando ritus Ceremonias peculiares illi i. Ye shall celebrate it by observing the Rites and Ceremonies peculiar to it Some were peculiar to the first passeover which were not to the second and the second had some difference from the following ones Lastly the words of Num. 9.3 c. may be thought to distinguish the Law Rites and Ceremonies of both first and second passeover from the rites due to other Sacrifices so that the Rites Customes or Statutes or other Offerings should not be intermingled with the Passeover but the Paschall Ceremonies are to be exactly kept kept a part and peculiarly severed from the other rather than that thâ—y doe enjoyne an exact parity and equality in every degree of the second Passeover with the first when the causes did differ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as farre as the East is from the West The Prayer O Blessed Iesu our onely true Passeover sacrificed for the sinnes of the whole world who by abolishing all Leviticall Rites Types and Shadowes hast declared that thy selfe art the fore-signified substance grant us we beseech thee so to eate thy flesh and so to drink thy blood that we leaving the meaner rudiments and all now-unnecessary Ceremonies may in all purenesse of heart heartiest devotion and in the devoutest way manner approach to thee worship thee and enjoy thee our foode spirituall our never-fading joy our Celestiall happinesse Amen Amen CHâ—P VII The Contents of the seventh Chapter 1. Some thinke the Iewes in the Aegyptian Passeover did Discumbere in signum libertatis not so 2. Iosephus misunder stood and misapplyed 3. Christ was to keepe it in things necessary not in the vanishing Rites Christ did something at his last Passeover which cannot be evinced to be done at the first Passeover 4. The Iewes borrowed the fashion of Discumbing from the Romanes saith Iosephus but that was of later times 5. Iulius Caesar feasted the Romanes on twentie two thousand Triclinia 6. The Indians beds Discumbing was used in India by the Brachmans Philostratus proveth it the armies of the Romanes never pierced into the heart of India the Indian Discumbing mentioned but as of yesterday in comparison with the first Passeover and rather a resemblance of the Roman fashion then the same 7. The Romanes imitated the Grecians and the Grecians the Asiatiques most anciently the Romanes did eate Sitting so Alexander ab Alexandro and Isidorus afterward women did sit though men lay downe saith Varro 8. Annarus King of Babylon and Nero Discumbed with their harlots this was Labentibus moribus 9. Discumbing practised by the Primitive Christians even women discumbed as Tertullian professeth Tertullian ad Nationes enlightened an obscure place of his Apologetique 10. The Grecians did also sit at Feasts first of all 11. Accubation was in free prosperous times 12. Curius Manlius first brought in triumph from Asia the Triclinia 13. Banqueting beds in Ahashuerus his dayes 14. Discumbing was not in use with any Nation before at or along while after the first Mosaicall Passeover 15. The lying downe of Angels in mens shapes Gen. 19.4 was not upon feasting but
to Abraham and his seed onely Thou and thy seed after thee Gen. 17.9 The seed of Ishmael was not bound sayth he but in Isaac shall thy seed be called Gen. 21.12 Esau also sayth hee was excepted from Circumcision for Isaac sayd to Jacob Gen. 28.4 God give thee the blessing of Abraham even to thee and thy seed with thee but the Iewish Doctor did forget that Abraham circumcised Ishmael and that the succeeding seed of Ishmael were circumcised he forgot also that Abraham did circumcise all bought with his money Gen. 17.23 and yet the Iew dares not say all they were of the seed of Abraham He forgot thirdly that Abraham circumcised all all the men in the house borne in the house ver 29. Were those home-borne slaves of the seed of Abraham Fourthly he forgot that Esau was cicumcised concluding Isaac to be a breaker of Gods Law by omitting his young sonne Esau his Circumcision Epiphanius de mensur â ponderibus about the middle of the booke as I proved in my Sermon at the re-admission of a relapsed Christian into our Church from Turcisme and is entituled A returne from Argier Epiphanius I say acknowledgeth Esaus Circumcision and sayth the Iewes themselves doe father the invention of that Attractory instrument whereby circumcision was made in effect uncircumcision upon the wicked Esau and his first practise on himself Lastly the Iewish Rabbi forgot that the Esauites or Edomites were circumcised and therein imitated their father As for the places of Scripture tortured by Maymonides this may be sayd of them concerning that place Thou and thy seed I say no Iew shall ever be able to prove them spoken Quoad externas omnes ceremonias exclusive absolutè for many Proselytes came into the Iewish Church and were circumcised Secondly if you take the word naturally for the seed and generation which flowed from Abraham Ishmael was of the seed and Ishmael was circumcised and the Iew should prove which hee cannot that no Ishmaelite was circumcised The next objection is in Isaac shall thy seed be called that is called to be more blessed more holy more preferred more prosperous in this world more beneficiall to others for the world to come from Isaac and his seed shall Christ come yet Christ came of Ruth the Moabitesse who was of the seed of Lot I know not that ever he came from any Ishmaelite the Apostle Gal. 3.16 interprets thus he sayth not unto seeds as of many but as of one and to thy seed which is Christ Lastly Isaac sayd to Iacch as in the Jewes objection God give thee the blessing of Abraham to thee and thy seed with thee I answer Gal. 3.14 S. Paul applieth the Blessing of Abraham Thus That the blessing of Abraham might come on the Gentles through Jesus Christ and so it did for Christ came not from Esau but Iacob Secondly the blessing of Abraham was the promise that he should be the heyre of the world Rom. 4.13 This indeed befell not Ishmael or Esau but Isaac and Iacob and their seede yea the Apostle saith expressely Rom. 4.9.10.11 Blessednesse came not upon the circumcision onely but upon the uncircumcision also So much for answere to Maymonides his crotchet whereof the one part may satisfie any Iew and the other part any Christian PAR. 3. I Must now proceede to distinguish of strangers also for strangers in the beginning of this point seeme to be both rejected from the Passeover and admitted to the Passeover which some reconcile thus In civill things was one Law both for Jewes and strangers but say I these were matters of Religion and so we have but slippery footing secondly Exod. 12.48 concerning not a civill businesse but about taking of the Passeover it selfe it is sayd One Law shall be to him that is home-borne and unto the stranger that sojourneth among you Wherefore I hold it best to fetch the beginning of mine answere a farre off that it may be more fit there were three sorts of strangers in the Iewish government 1. the meere Alien 2. the n Concerning this sojourning or Forrenour strangers in the businesse of eating the Passeover see Chap. 9. Pargra 10. Forraigner 3. the Sojournour or the Profeselyte The meere Alien was also of two sorts first such an one who would make no manner of profession of holinesse no conformitie either with the Jew or other holy Patriarkes doctrine before the dayes of Abraham and such the Jewes might not converse withall but slew them every one as unworthy to breath or live so soone as he was descryed or knowne The second sort of meere Aliens were such as acknowledged the Law of Nature and kept the tradition of Adam and Noah and lived in a faire way of Religion though discrepant from the Jew The Jewes say Adam gave these sixe Precepts to be kept for ever 1. The first against Idolatry against the adoring of Sunne Moone and Starres and against Images To this the two first Commandements may bee reduced 2. The second was against the blaspheming of the Name of God our third Commandement conteineth this for if we may not take the name of God in vaine much lesse may wee blaspheme the Name of God and the blasphemer of the Name of the Lord was stoned Levit. 24.11.14 3. The third Precept say the Jewes of Adam was against blood-shedding it may be this was given upon the murther of Abel if sooner Cain had the greater sinne to this accordeth our sixth Commandement Thou shalt doe no murther 4. The fourth Precept of Adam was opposed to unjust carnall copulations our seventh Commandement is correspondent to this 5. The fifth traditionaty mandate of Adam was against stealing and to that our eighth Commandement answereth exactly 6. The last supposed Precept of Adam was a charge to punish male-factors But what needes this Precept say I when the breach of any Commandement had intentionally the punishment annexed to it to be inflicted on the malefactor Noah gave a seventh Commandement say the Jewes and it was this not to eate the blood It is true that God commanded Noah Gen. 9.4 Flesh with the life thereof which is the blood thereof shall ye not eate but every precept which was given to a Patriarch was not commanded by the Patriarch to others much lesse to all others for to be observed for ever if the heathen should not yeeld to observe all these Lawes the Iewes did interdict them yea flew them out-right as hated Atheists and professed enemies of God the murther of whom was a pleasing sacrifice of God Almighty If the heathen were content to make a profession to these points of Religion though they kept a loofe off from the other parts of the Iewish Credo yet they dwelt among the Iewes and sojourned in their land and were the Aliens or meere strangers who were not yet admitted to the Iewes Passeover I have made the best of these Iewish subtile speculations but in truth the Law of Moses is but
forbid intentio etsi non consequaris in the tenth cogitatio etsi non sequaris saith a great Divine of our Church and he citeth S. Augustin thus Magnum fecit qui non sequitur malum sed non sic perfecit nam cogitare probibetur we are bound by this Commandement to keepe the tablet of our hearts and soules from being dirted or soyled though neuer so little the very listning to Satans temptations and the first thought of evill is sinne and here interdicted for God accounteth that to be voluntary not onely what is committed but what is intended yea the very cogitation which is not hindered by the Will when it is bound to hinder it the thought halfe-received halfe rejected the very seed as is were of sinne and the first degree of entertainement thereof subjecteth a man to this Commandement and not to the breach of others And thus much concerning the Romane Lawes correspondence with the Lawes Divine from whence the Aegyptians tooke them and the Grecians from them for Clemens Alexandrinus Stromat 6. pag. 457. saith well of the Grecians that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they did steale from all sorts of Writers and the Romanes had most from the Grecians PAR. 10. MIne old taske is not yet ended after the businesses concerning the meere Alien are thus done off I am by my proposed Method to treate of the stranger or b See above in this Chapter Parag. 2. forraigner were he a professed Travellour were he a Tradsman or Merchant rather errant than fixed he might not be forced to Circumcision he might not partake of the Passeover Exod. 12.45 A forreiner shall not eate thereof The thing that dyed of it selfe was to be given to the stranger that is in thy gates that he may eate it or thou maist sell it unto an Alien Deut. 14.21 these two sorts of strangers might be so served but not the third sort as I thinke the third sort of strangers the Sojourners were such as also continued and dwelt among them within their gates these if they and their Males were circumcised and desirous to eate the Passeover were not excluded from those sacred benefits Let him come neere and keepe the Passeover and he shall be as one borne in the Land Exod. 12.48 and when they dyed they were not buried in the buriall place of strangers which was a distinct coemiterium Matth. 27.7 but were buried among the Iewes Where thou diest I will die and there will I be buried Ruth 1.17 Yea if a stranger or one borne in the Land should have eaten leavened bread any of the seven dayes of the Paschall Festivity even that soule shall be cut off from the Congregation of Israel Exod. 12.19 These so journing strangers in later times were called Proselytes and had many priviledges Num. 15.14 15 16. One Law and one manner shall be for you and for the stranger that sojourneth with you See also Num. 9.14 The Iewes called strangers Sojourners or Proselytes within their Covenant and obedient to the Iewish Law Righteous strangers of holy strangers and converts was our Christian Church also compounded the Iewes did compasse sea and land to make one Proselyte and yet that people may feare without good causes to change the Religion in which they were bred what sayth Christ Matth. 23.15 Ye make him twofold more the child of hell than your selves Devoute Proselytes came and dweit at Hierusalem Act. 2.5 and 10. verses Act. 13.43 Religious Proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas this is confirmed Esay 14.1 The strangers shall be joyned with Israel and they shall cleave to the house of Israel yea the very sons of strangers have Gods gracious promise Esay 56.3 Let not the sonne of the stranger that hath joyned himselfe to the Lord say the Lord hath utterly separated us from his people the devoute sons of the stranger within the Covenant God will bring to his holy mountaines and make them joyfull in his house of prayer the burnt offerings and sacrifices shall be accepted upon Gods Altar vers 7. Thus doe I passe from the described severall sorts of servants as likewise of strangers and close up all for the reconciling of these seeming contradictions mustered up in the front of this Chapter by observing two points of moment 1. First what indulgence soever is granted what grace offered what favour permitted it is onely to such as were circumcised the proofe reacheth home No uncircumcised person shall eate thereof Exod. 12.48 And the very approbatory precepts containe so much the servant bought with money may eate the Passeover when he is circumcised and the sojourning stranger when all his Males be circumcised he may keepe it as is above cited Thus the negative Precepts No stranger shall eate thereof a forraigner an hired servant shall not eate thereof all these and if there be more must be understood of such as are uncircumcised for if any of these had beene admitted into the bosome of the Iewish Church and write their Covenant with the blood of their Circumcision and sealed it with the seale of Gods people then had they an interest in the Passeover 2. The second thing promised to be premised is this How strict soever the Letter of the Law seemeth to carry it that not one but circumcised people might eate thereof yet neither were women circumcised nor yet were they excluded from eating the Passeover that the men Idaealitèr represented the women and the women were as I may so say circumcised in the men see proved in my Miscellanies concerning the second part of the disjunction it is true the Passeover might be eaten by men alone without women so was that most holy Passeover celebrated by our most blessed Saviour nor women nor disciple at large but the Apostles the 12. Apostles onely ate it with him of which God willing hereafter that onely women by themselves ever observed it I have not read I doe not beleeve though the Master of the family supplied the roome of the first-borne yet the priviledge of the first-borne or of the Priest to sacrifice the Passeover was never permitted to women If it be objected that Zipporah Exod. 4.25 circumcised her soone and might she not as well slay the Passeover I answer the difference is great for first Moses was at the point of death and could not circumcise him secondly it was fit that she who in likelihood had hindered Moses from circumcising him should now doe it her selfe thirdly no Expositor ever doubted but all this businesse was translated by the power and direction of God or of the Angell both shewing the cause of Gods wrath against Moses because he who was to give the Law to others was a breaker of the Law given to him by Abraham for the circumcision which though God forbare whilst Moses continued a private man among the Heathen yet now that he was governour Elect going as it were to be installed with the rod of God in his hand Cum baculo
be roasted with the legges 13. They were to roast the Purtenance also 14. The Jewes came not empty but offered according to their abilities and Christians are to equalize if not to exceede them PAR. 1. THe next Ceremony of continuance was In one house it shall be eaten Exod. 12.48 c. That there were some houses in which no Lambe was eaten is apparent Indeede it is sayd Exod. 12.3 They shall take every man a Lambe according to the house of their fathers a Lambe for an house yet there is added ver 14. If the house be too little for the Lambe let him and his neighbour next to his house take it according to the Number of the soules Whence I justly inferre that that house stood either empty or at least some few weake people might be in it which were unfit to be Communicants in the Aegyptian Passeover I am perswaded that the postes of that doore were be-sprinckled with some blood for feare of the destroying Angell which was not performed afterwards and the non-Communicants might stay in them and by the blood be freed from danger Secondly I inferre where the family was too little or small in number the Passeover was not eaten in that house but they are it in another house where there was a competent number together Cornelius â Lapide the Jesuite concludeth hence Agnum non in Templo sed in domo immolatum esse that the Lambe was not slaine in the Temple but in the house both now and ever after but I answere if he restraine himselfe to the most common usuall custome I hold with him if he exclude extraordinary occasions and thinke it was never otherwise he shall give me leave to dissent That these words a Lambe for an house doth necessarily include this meaning either that no house was without the slaying and eating of a Lambe or that two Lambes might not bee slaine and eaten in one house I cannot beleeve there were not more than one Lambe killed or eaten in one house some say Dr. Willet on Gen. 12. quest 7. is peremptory there was not more than one lambe killed in one house and elsewhere on Exod. 12. quest 12. in his third answere to an opinion which he otherwise justly confuteth letteth fall these words though the houshould were never so great one Lambe might suffice to have every one a part it was not provided to fill their bellies ît was lawfull for them afterward to eate other meate it was prescribed to be used as a Sacramentall commemoration of their deliverance and so to be a food rather for their soules than their bodies The first two sentences onely give matter of exception I say then the company in one house might be so great that one Lambe onely could not afford to every person one bit Salomons dayly provision was 1 King 4.22 c. 30. measures of fine flower and 60. measures of meale 10. fat Oxen 20. Oxen out of the Pastures 100. sheep besides Harts Roe-Buckes Fallow-Deere and fatted Fowle Could one Lambe afford one morsell a peece for a Paschall Sacrifice to every one of this houshold and dayly eaters a Wheate-cornes weight of the Lambe could not have beene sufficient for every one but some would have wanted Againe we never reade that if the family were over-great and super-numerous they were commanded to divide their companies and goe to other houses but if they were too few they went to the next house So one Lambe was not killed in some house or houses but for all this two or more Lambes might be eaten in one house in another house Besides God appointed rather of the two that they should have too much rather than too little and tooke order for the burning of the remainder whence fairely resulteth he intended every one should have some and a competencie yet some might be left If the Sacred Morsels had beene scant and some had wanted to eate it had beene a great sinne the un-eating soules shall be cut off Num. 9.13 The man that is cleane and is not in a journey and forbeareth to keepe the Passeover the same soule shall be cut off from Gods people In other Sacrifices the Primitive appointment was that some parts of them were to be burned and others eaten the Priest being to haue his share Levit. 7.30 c. But in the Passeover all of it was to be eaten if they could eate all and the remainder was to be burned not onely the bones but the flesh also Maymonides on Corban Pesach cap 9. sect 1. saith two companies might eate two Lambes in one house but they must not be mingled nor looke one company upon or to another By the same reason say I in severall roomes there may be severall companies and severall Lambes according to the numbers of the family proportioning the Lambes to the fraternity or the fraternity to the Lambes from five sixe or more both companies and Passeovers Christ and his Colledge of Apostles are the Paschall Lambe in an upper-chamber yet the Master of the family and some other with him might eate their Passeover other-where in the same house In one house it must be eaten therefore it might not be eaten without doores sub Dio in aprico not in Bowers not in Tents purposely erected but in their standing houses No eating without the house figureth this proposition no Salvation is without the Church Non habet Deum patrem qui non habet ecclesiam matrem He hath not God for his father that hath not the Church for his mother I could wish those factionists to whom the very name of the Church is odious that they would remember this lesson God is not their Father if the Church be not their mother they that are cut off from the Church by excommunication are in a most fearefull estate and are excluded from this sacred Supper The beasts and beastly men which were not in the Arke were all drowned In one house it must be eaten Schisme and separations are herein forbidden In one house or roome as some interpret it the Chaldee interpreter hath it most significantly In one company as if there might be divers roomes and divers Lambes and divers societies but onely one Paschall-Lambe in one roome and one company More Lambes in populous families might be eaten in one house upon no occasion might one Lamb be eaten in two houses There was Vnus in unâ domo agnus one Lambe in one house saith Adam Contzen the Jesuite not unicus one onely say I yes saith he and he proveth it by Exod. 12.3 and inferreth that the Lambe was provided foure dayes before What of that the provision of the Lambe foure dayes before was none of the durable Rites but served them then against the present exigent the place in Exodus doth not evince that every house must have a Lambe but rather the contrary For if the houshould be too little for the Lambe let him and his Neighbour next to his house take it ver
And after blessing then the younger fort enquired why the preceding Supper was so discordant and divers from all other Suppers with double washings without baked boyled or stewed meates without any herbes save bitter ones As the youth enquired according to that Exod. 12.26 So the head of that societie you may say he was Rex sacrorum Architriclinus King of the Ceremonies Sewer or Master of the feast Gentleman-Vsher Chaplaine in Ordinary or Marshall of the Hall or Symposiast pater discubitus Initiator 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who placed the guests according to their worth Nomarcha Coenae the Ruler of the Feast according to that of Exod. 13.8 made remonstrance of what God had done to deliver them from the house of bondage nor might any of their Table-talke be irreligious or vaine or carpingly censorious or provoking to wrath nor was it as at other times with Riddles or other delightfull good discourses nor roved they at large at all sacred conferences but was empaled in and confined to the well-seasoned Relations as the Memoriall then lead them of the plagues in Aegypt of the destroying Angell inhibited to destroy their First-borne of the Seas retiring and the Two walles of water forgetting their naturall Fluidity on the right hand and on the left of their haste and feare and of Pharaohs hardened heart mollified by his drowning and Gods carrying them on Eagles winges Aulus Gellius Noct. Attic. 13.11 Nec loquaces Convivas nec multos legere oportet guests must not be tatling like Geese nor mute as Fishes and the discourses must be jucunde invitabiles delightfull and profitable not perplexing or troublesome the Master or Lord of the Feast must be Non tam lautus quà m sive sordibus neate and cleanely Macrobius Saturnal 7.1 handleth the poynt more at large as a few mute letters dispersed among many vowells in societatem vocis facilè mansuescunt doe make an easie pronounciation so some few unlearned delighting in the company of more learned either accord with them if they can or are delighted with their discourse Timotheum clarum hominom Athenis principem Civitatis ferunt cùm coenuvisset apuà Platonem eoqui convivio admodùm delectat â—s esses videssetque eum postridiè dixisse vestrae quidem Coenae non solùm in praesentiâ sed etià m postero die jucundae sunt that is It is storied of Timothy a famous man of Athens and one of the chiefe of that Citie that having on a time supped with Plato hee was wonderously delighted with that Feast and meeting him by chance the next day he told him that his Supper did rellish a long time after a Philosophers banquet as Cicero lib. 5. Tusquaest PAR. 6. HOw great a care God had of continuing the Memorialls of his favour to the Israelites appeareth by appointing the pot of Manna to be kept and Aarons rod which budded likewise Iosh 4.5 c. Twelve men tooke up twelve stones every man a stone upon his shoulder that this may be a signe among you that when your children aske their fathers in time to come saying what meane you by these stones Then ye shall answer them that the waters of Jordan were cut off before the Arke of the Covenant of the Lord when it passed over Jordan the waters of Jordan were cut off as it is pithily repeated ver 7. See to the same purpose Iosh 4.20 c. Quoties Christiani agapis vescebant fidem Psalmis pascebant ait Tertullianus that is as oft as Christian did fill their bellies together with good cheere they fed their faith with finging of Psalmes Cyprianus lib. 2. epist 2. Nec sit velhora convivii gratia coelestis immunis Sonet Psalmis sobrium convivium that is at all your sober Christian Feasts let Grace be Salt and Psalmes the Musique what Ioshua did was in immitation of what God commanded Exod. 12.35 When ye be come to the land which the Lord will give you you shall keepe the Passeover and when your children shall say unto you what meane you by this Service that yee shall say It is the Sacrifice of the Lords Passeover who passed over the houses of Israel in Aegypt when he smote the Aegyptians and delivered our houses ver 27. Though such discourse was not directly appointed at the first Aegyptian passeover because of their affrighted haste yet I doubt not but both they and their children knew why this Feast was thus kept and ever after it was to them a speaking memoriall of their deliverance concerning which their children were taught to enquire of their parents and their parents were used to relate unto them all their passed seares sorrowes and deliverances with their enemies destructions Exod. 13.8 Thou shalt shew thy sonne in that day and 14. When thy sonne asketh thee Thou shalt say c. So Deut. 6.20 c. When thy sonne asketh thee in time to come Thou shalt say to thy sonne we were Pharaohs bondmen in Aegypt and ver 7. Thou shalt teach them diligently to thy children and shall talke of them when thou sittest in the house when thou walkest by the way when thou lyest downe and when thou risest up The Spouse Cant. 2.9 saith of Christ My beloved is like a Roe or a young Hart behold hee standeth behinde our walls he looketh forth at a window shewing himselfe through the Lattesse Which words the Targum thus Paraphraseth to our purpose as it is set forth by the learned Edmund Rivius The Congregation of Israel said in the time when the glory of God was revealed in Aegypt in the night of the passeover and when he slew all their first-borne God ascended upon swiftest lightning and ranne like ae Roe or young Goate and protected and defended the houses in which we were and stood behind our wall and looked through the Lattesses and saw the blood of the Passeover and of the Circumcision imprinted as it were on our portalls and behold from the highest heavens and saw his people eating the passeover rosted with fire with wilde Lettuce and unleavened bread and spared us and gave no power to Apollyon to destroy us These are the declarative sayings of the Church as the Targum imagineth in answer forsooth to the question like enough to be propounded at the eating of the passeover but in truth Delrio most divinely on the place adapteth the words to our Saviours Incarnation which the obstinate Iew will not beleeve to be accomplished PAR. 7. IF any Psalme were sung at their passeover after Davids time or in it I presume it was the 78. Psalme in which was a full relation of Gods wonders in Aegypt and he teacheth them what he had learned of others ver 3.4 as God commanded them ver 5.6 though God commanded them in other places to teach their children yet this place of Exod. 12.25 may be also aymed ar Till Davids time I suppose they at the passeover did recite Moses his song Exod. 15.1 I will sing unto the Lord for
before The Prayer MOst infinite and incomprehensible Lord God the first Fathers and Patriarchs of the Church knew thee by thy many glorious names and Epithetes and by thy frequent apparitions and revelations unto them wee know them by thy holy Scriptures in them are both milke and strong meate there may the Leviathan sport himselfe and the Lambe may wade and drinke most things thy wisdome hath concealed all things needfull for mortall men hast thou written some in more darke termes and some in more cleere patefactions Thy glorious selfe being most free art not tyed to any other expressions than what please thee Good Lord let thy divine writ teach mee guide mee in all goodnesse till death deliver mee over to a more blessed estate Grant this O Father for Jesus Christ his sake Amen CHAP. VII The second Generall The Contents of the seaventh Chapter 1 That there was a second Supper at the Jewish Paschall Proofes from the Old Testament Vnto the Paschall was annexed the Chagigah 2 Difference betweene the first and second Supper Maimonides Scaliger Beza and Baronius erred in this point 3 The first Supper when it began 4 The different meates a◠the First Second Supper Jewes Gentiles at their great feasts did eate two suppers 5 Christs gesture at the Paschall Supper Coena Domini Tricoenium Christi-Christ in his last Passeover kept the Ceremonies of the Jewes Coena Dimissoria what it was PARAGRAPH I. IT now followeth that what I have averred and avouched I should confirme by proofes First then I must evince That there was a second Supper at the Iewish Paschall Secondly that Christ was as it Thirdly more particularly let us weigh 1 When this second supper began 2 What was said in it and what was done in it 3 When it ended 4 Whether Iudas partaked of it In the first point I will prove That there was a second Supper at the Iewish Paschall From the Old Testament From the New Testament From the Fathers From Protestants From Papists 1 Proofes from the Old Testament Towards the end of the Paschall Supper or at the end of it the Jewes usually had a larger Supper called a common supper as Maimonides and the Jewish Doctors confesse which supper though it was not injoyned at the Aegyptian Passeover when they were in so perplexed an estate and in such hurly-burly that it was hard to say whether the Iewes or the Aegyptians most bestirred themselves to hasten the Israelites abrupt departure yet you shall finde it expresly precepted Deuteronomy 16.2 Thou shalt sacrifize the Passeover unto the Lord thy God of the flocke and of the herd The Lambe of the flocke was the proper Passeover The beast of the herd were for the festivall refreshments of the second supper some of them even the same night as well as for the succeeding seven daies Yea it is most observable that both the flocke and the herd are commanded and the order expressed First they must sacrifice the Passeover of the flocke Secondly of the herd Thirdly is mentioned the bread verse 3. Thou shalt eate no leavened bread with it Vaine are they then that thinke that they might eate none of the herd that night With the Passeover indeed they might eate none but so soone as the Rites of the Passeover were performed they did eate of the herd of which hereafter Nor might they eate unleavened bread at either of those suppers or feasts For the Sacramentall supper was not ordeined meerly as naturall food at civill Feasts Every one present had some of it but they made not their full meales on it every one had a little and with feare and reverence did they approach to the beginning of it Sacred things were sparely and warily taken and used in respect of their eating of ordinary food As with us the taking of the blessed body and blood of our Lord precedeth our usuall refections at dinners and is first eaten propter honorem corporis Dominici for the honour of the Lords body as S. Augustine excellently phraseth it So the sacred partaking of the Paschall Lambe with unleavened bread and sowre hearbes was the antipast to their second succeeding supper Apparent then it is that unto the sacred offering of thanksgiving in the proper Paschall sacrifice which was their first and devouter part of the night there were to be added Peace-offrings or Feast offerings at the same time Unto the Pascha was annexed the Chagigab The herd did minister meat-offrings of more joy and comfort as it were at the second course as the flocke had done before of dovout thankesgiving mingled partly of joy partly of soure sorrow For it is expressely said Deuteron 16.4 Neither shall there any thing of the flesh which thou sacrificest the first day at even remaine all night untill the morning Where observe they also sacrificed the very first day at even both of the flocke and of the herd as appeareth by the second verse and they rosted the Passeover some of the herd they did also boyle the same night Deuteron 16.7 as it is in the Bishops Bibles Thou shalt seeth and eate it Coques as the Interlineary hath it and Hentenius and Santandreanus The Margent of the Interlineary hath Assabis and Vatablus Assabis Vebishaltah is the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as the 70. rendred by Vatablus coques Tremellius hath it coques Our last translation and Vatablus did interpret the word according to the use of the proper Passeover which was to be rosted but both the originall it selfe and the 70 and Vulgat and other interpreters understood it truly of the other Sacrifices which might be sodden yea some of them were precepted hereby to be boyled PAR. 2. THe great Maimonides utterly maketh this to be a difference betweenē the first and second supper betweene the more sacred and common meate Thē flesh of the Chagigah might be served and kept a day or two after but the flesh of the Pascha must be eaten or burnt before morning Both Scaliger Beza Baronius and the adherents of them though they plainly and punctually confesse a second supper yet they ascribe too much to the Jewish rituall First was brought in In posteriori mensa at the second course saith Baronius from the rituall Embamma ex intybis a sallet of sowre hearbes That they had more sallets more sauce and no other fresh meat of the herd seems strange to mee No other Bellaria junkets were brought in saith hee and Beza If by bellariae they exclude all other flesh of the herd or what was offered in Peace-offerings they are confuted by the place in Deuteronomie Let reason trye it If the Jewes at their second suppers had no junkers nor flesh of any other beasts but onely acetarium ex intybis lactucis agrestibus bitter sharpe sallets it deserveth not the name of a supper But whosoever exactly looketh into it will find great part of that which followeth in Beza belonging not to the first supper as hee would
the consecration of the unleavened bread and confesseth saith Baronius um tantùm in paschate sed in aliis maximis Judaeorum solennibus diebus ut Pentecoste Scenopegia ejusmodi duplices coenas exhiberi consuevisse That not onely at Easter but also on other great feastivall dayes of the Iewes as at Whitsontide and at the feast of Tabernacles such double Suppers were wont to be exhibited Thus among the Iewes you shall finde Maymonides for the second Supper and the very Rituall it selfe you have also Scaliger Kemnitias and Beza for the same among the Protestants I have begun with Baronius among the Papists He againe saith expresly Christ gave Iudas the Sop in the second Supper I touched also at Franciscus Lucas Burgensis who againe on Matth. 26.21 Edentibus illis thus hath it Inter edendum edendum autem non pascha quod primum festinanter a stantibus comestum fuerat sed reliquos ejus coenae cibos as they did eate But the passeover was not to be eaten which was first eaten in haste by the Israelites standing but the other Viands of that Supper The same Lucas Burgensis on Iohnn 13.2 Coenâ factâ The Supper being ended thus Coena cujus primus cibus fuer at agnus Paschalis reliquus cibus vulgaris facta non ita ut mensa esset ablata gratiae actae post coenam ordinariam sed ante sacram Eucharisticam The supper whose first service was the paschall Lambe the rest of the dishes ordinary or common victuals being ended not so ended as that the table was removed and grace said after the ordinary or common supper but before the sacred and Eucharisticall supper The same on Luke 22.20 Addit hoc Lucas postquam coenasset or post coenasse or postquam coenassent as it is in the Syriack ut intelligamus sacramentum hoc non pertinuâ—sse ad vulgarem coenam quae pascendo corpori subservierat After hee had supped or after supper or After they had supped to give us to understand that this Sacrament did not belong to the Vulgar or Common Supper which served for the feeding of the body Sebastian Barradius Tom. 4. pag. 31. After Christ with his Apostles had eaten the Paschall Lambe In mensa recubuit cibosque alios sumpsit Againe ibid. It was not forbidden but usuall to eate other meates in the Paschall Supper The same Barradius pag. 64. speaking of the words Post quam coenavit After hee hâ—d supped They are to be understood de sola coena legali communi quae sequuta est legalem Onely of the legall and common Supper which followed after the Legall where hee plainly acknowledgeth two suppers the Legall one and the common one following it The same having a little before cited the Ecclesiasticall hymne Post Agnum typicum expletis epulis Corpus Dominicum datum discipulis After the Pascall Lambe and second Festivall Christ gave his Disciples his body mysticall Hee coucludeth from expletis epulis ergo post coenam epulas omnes The banquets being ended Therefore hee gave his body After supper and all other banquets which words prove more banquetting stuffe than a platter of sowre sauce onely as Scaliger would have it in the second supper Fost agnum alios sumebant cibos quos intingebant in condimentum hoc vel aliud praeparatum saith Barradius truly After the Lambe they did eate other meate which they dipped in this sauce or some other sauce newly prepared for that purpose Maldonate on Matt. 26.26 pag. 555. thus Cum tres eodem tempore actiones fuerint quae tres coenae vocari solent Whereas there were three actions which commonly they call three suppers the first in which the Paschall Lambe was eaten which is called the ceremoniall supper The second the common and usuall supper for saith hee the Lambe being religiously eaten because for the most part they who ate of it were not filled or satisfied they had another supper of which they did sup to saturity and pag. 557. at the beginning Solebat eso jam agno coena communis apponi There was wont when the Lambe was eaten to be served in a common supper The third supper was when Christ consecrated his Body and Blood So farre well PAR. 2. VVHether the first ceremoniall suppeÌ„r be called any where a supper I do not well remember saith hee and yet hee knew it was to be eaten betweene the two evenings then which there is no time more proper for a supper And himselfe at the last words of the next page The Lambe might be eaten at no other time than at supper Doth not Saint Iohn say After Supper John 13.2 which could not be after the third or second supper for they were after those words spoken but of nëcessity must be interpreted of the first supper of the Lambe which was thén ended Therefore the eating of the Passeover is justly and truly called a supper and the first supper I pitty the peremptory ignorance of Piscator in his Scholia on that placë who saith Omnino pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 videtur legendum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ac proinde vertendum dum coena fieret hoc est inter coenandum non autem coenâ peractâ It seemeth altogether saith hee that instead of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the 2. Aorist mediae vocis which intimateth the time perfectly though but newly past wee ought to read 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is a participle of the time present And so indeed in the Greeke New Testament printed by Iohn Crispin in the Margent wee find it and therefore that place of Saint Iohn ought to be translated Whilst they were at supper or at supper-time not when supper was ended for all his arguments prove the second Supper was not ended which no man denies though the Paschall supper were transacted before The second or ordinary supper Saint Luke Saint Iohn and Saint Paul call a supper saith hee A plaine confession of a second supper and yet not plainer than that the eating of the Paschall is called a supper PAR. 3. TOlet on Iohn 13.2 Annotatione 7. distinguisheth theÌ„ legall supper from the common supper Peractâ Paschali Agni coenâ communi incaeptâ saith hee againe The Supper of the Paschall Lambe being ended and the common supper being begunne hee washed their feete The most learned Suarez on Thomas pag. 487. saith Augustine and Iansenius do not distinguish Coenam usualem a coena legali The usuall supper from the legall supper But himselfe doth and againe is expressed pag. 483. Christus illâ nocte duplicem vel triplicem coenam egit cum suis Discipulis Christ in the same night did eate two or three suppers with his Disciples Bellarmine de Sacramento Eucharist 4.27 ad 2. object saith the Eucharist sub specie panis proprie respondet coenae Iudaicae Agno Paschali Under the Element of bread doth properly answer unto the Judaicall supper and to the paschall Lambe Where he acknowledgeth
contention after the third Supper according to the literall Method yet in the order of History it is to be taken in at the second Supper And behold the ground of my conjecture It is scarce credible that presently after the devour receiving of the most holy Eucharist there should be dissention for Primacy I dare say who had such pridy ambitious thoughts presently upon the new Sacrament they had beene unworthy receivers thereof which none of the Apostles were for Iudas received not of which hereafter Againe it is said Luke 22.21 But behold the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table Now these words are spoken after the administration of the blessed Eucharist what followes thence Either we must make Iudas a participant of the body bloud of Christ which though some have held more have held otherwise that with greater reason we must make that after the third Supper they continued eating the Table being yet spread and meat thereon for else why was the hand of Iudas with Christ on the Table and so in effect we must make a fourth Supper of Christ the Passeover the common second Supper the most blessed Eucharist and lastly this Post-coenium or Reere-Supper which is most false and vast Or else we must grant that the holy Spirit did not stand so strictly upon the literall method in S. Luke which is most true as I touched at before and may appeare yet farther because almost the same words are described by S. Matthew and S. Marke Before Christ administred his most holy Supper which S. Luke placeth after the third and most sacred Supper Therefore I say Their contention was before their being satisfied in the point controverted and their satisfaction was before the receiving of the most blessed Eucharist and the meanes to satisfie them was Christs most extraordinary humiliation And now by these steppes of conjecture and probability I am come to the more certaine observations That the Apostles often fell out among themselves striving for superioritie cannot be denied S. Peter himselfe was in a manner over-curiously jealous of the company of S. Iohn What shall this man doe Ioh. 21.21 And Christ beat off S. Peter thus If I will that be tarry till I come what is that to thee The tenne Apostles were moved with indignation against the two brethren of Zebedees children Matth. 20.24 because one would have a promise to be on the right hand of Christ and the other on the left And Christ tooke the Apostles off from their passion saying Whosoever will be great among you let him be your Minister and whosoever will he chiefe among you let him be your servant as the Sonne of man came not to be ministred unto but to minister Matth. 20.26 27 28. verses By the way they disputed among themselves who should be greatest Marke 9.34 but he told the twelve If any man desire to be first the same shall be last of all and servant of all verse 35. A primacy he denieth not among them it was and is necessarie but the affectation and ambition of it he disliketh and sets them point blanke on the contrary Luke 9.46 There arose a reasoning among them viz. the twelve Apostles which of them should be the greatest And Jesus perceiving the thoughts of their heart tooke a child and set him by him verse 47. set him in the midst of them and tooke him in his armes Marke 9.36 and said to his Apostles Except ye be converted and become as little children yee shall not enter into the kingdome of heaven and whosoever shall humble himselfe as this little child the same is greatest in the kingdome of heaven Matth. 18.3 and 4. verses It was one thought of many men one heart of twelve Apostles the thought of theïr heart all thought so every one desired it and every one was answered When all these most divine actions words and counsells were either forgotten or neglected and after the Passeover and at the second Supper There was a strife among them which of them should be accounted the greatest Luk 22.24 Christ answereth in words from vers 25. to vers 30. inclusivè And when those words had not wrought fully enough on them nor humbled them sufficiently Then and upon this occasion as I judge Christ answered them indeede and went a quicker and more piercing way to teach them humilitie knowing their contention came not from God knowing he came from God and went to God Christ riseth from Supper and laid aside his garments and tooke a towell and girded himselfe powreth water into a Bason Joh. 13.4 c. The strife mentioned by S. Luke was before Christ washed their feete saith Salmeron though Barradius saith perhaps the strife arose because S. Peters feete were first washed which speech interferreth with that of Barronius next to be cited That the Apostles never grudged at S. Peters Primacy PAR. 7. THis did Christ beginne about halfe an houre after sixe in the Evening towards the end of the first quarter of an houre in their second Supper to wash their feete and Baronius much erred to say that Christ washed the Apostles feete ante secundam mensam when S. Iohn is expresse that Coenâ factâ the Paschall being ended Christ rose from Supper and washed them therefore it was not before the second Supper but in it one Supper was ended and Christ arose from another Supper Non debemus coenam adhuc factam veluti jam consummatam transsactam intelligere Adhuc enim coenabatur cum Dominus surrexit lavit saith Augustine Tractat. 55. in Johannem We must not conceit of the Supper being yet a eating as if it were consummated and dispatch't for as yet they were at Supper when the Lord arose and washed them he addeth most remarkeably Panis adhuc erat in mensa cùm buccellam dedit suo traditori The bread was yet on the Table when the Lord gave the Sop to him that should betray him But Osiander was mad to say Christ washed their feete before the eating of the Paschall we have proved Christ washed them in the second Supper There is not so much as a shadow of likelihood that Christ washed the Apostles feete before the Paschall and in the second Supper also S. Cyrill in his Booke De Ablutione pedum is in another extreme That our Saviour washed his Disciples after the receiving of the Eucharist But this cannot be for he put on his garments againe and did Discumbere or lye downe againe and entred into discourse and gave his Sop to Iudas all which did precede the Eucharist and not follow after it The truth is the Iewes of those times began their second washing at the beginning of their second Supper but Christ did so in the middle of the second Supper or rather toward the beginning of the Eucharist preparing his Apostles to a worthy receiving both by washing them and giving them good advice and I hold his Conclusion to be good
eate bread with Christ as both the Psalmist foretold and indeede was accomplished verse 18. Therefore many conclude it was bread which Christ gave but the argument holdeth not For he did eate bread with Christ at both Suppers and yet what Christ gave him now at last might very well be a morsell of meat dipped in the Embamma or sauce some say in the Wine Nonnus is thus rendred by the most learned Heinsius Cuimanum intingens nigro liquore made factum panem praebuero ipse me prodit Et in poculum plenum vino intingens extremum panis impudenti dedit Iudae To whom soever I shall give a morsell of bread soaked in the blacke pottage when I have dipped it therein with mine hand he shall betray me And when he had dipped the tip of the bread in the Cup full of wine he gave it to the impudent Judas He holdeth three things 1. That the thing delivered was bread 2. That the Bread was dipt in wine 3. That this Bread was sacred and divine for it followeth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 post panem Deo similem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Divinum panem After the Bread like unto God or the Divine Bread the divell entred into him The Aegyptians as saith the most accurate Heinsius pag. 464. of which Nation Nonnus was Intinctam vino offam exhibent Give the bread dipped in wine which might be done in time of necessitie as Eusebius proved from Serapion but the Aegyptians did so ordinarily till Julius the Pope for-bad it in his Epistle to the Aegyptian Priests Micrologus cap. 19. disliketh and disproveth that custome thus Julius wholy forbiddeth such intinction and teacheth that the Bread is to be taken by it selfe and the Cup by it selfe according to Christs institution Again in Canonibus titulo de consecratione distinctione 2. C. cum omne Iulius both refuteth and abrogateth that custome of giving to the people the Eucharist dipped because Christ gave to none of his Apostles such an endippid bit but to Iudas onely which soked morsell should be as an infallible token to signe out the betrayer of his Master not a signe of the institution of the Sacrament So farre the excellent Heinsius who also citeth S. Augustine Tractat. 52. in Iohannem Iudas tooke not Christs body when he tooke the Sop as some thinke who reade the words negligently In this point he is right But S. Augustine is much mistaken in thinking that before this Sop given Iudas and all the Apostles had received from Christ the Sacrament of his body and blood And though otherwhere he embraceth not the method of S. Luke yet here he stands too strict upon it and makes a kind of Supper after the blessed Sacrament which hath its inconveniences great and unsufferable of which 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 God willing hereafter PAR. 8. I Winde up all Suppose we that this Morsell was Bread that this bread was dipped in wine yet was it not the consecrated either bread or wine but part of the second Supper S. Bernard in Sermone 3. de Coena Domini Columella 1355. is expresse That the Sacrament was not given Tune by the soppe Christus buccellam solummodò intinctam non consecratam Judae porrexit saith Ludolphus Carthusianus parte 2 cap. 55. Christ gave Iudas onely a dipped not a consecrated soppe The reason of Soto is good When Christ gave to the rest of his Disciples severally his body and his blood after sub forma Potûs under the forme of wine wee may not thinke he gave it to Iudas dipped or soked for this is not to eate and drinke Therefore the same Soto in the same place viz. 4. Sentent Distinct 12. Quaest 2. Artic. 2. thus Hillarius universi Hillary and all the rest of the Fathers with S. Augustine agree that in or with that soppe Iudas tooke not the body and blood of Christ And no man can dissent from this saith he Yet I dissent from Soto when he is peremptory that the buccella or morsell was intincta in vino dipped in wine for Salsamentum was not necessary saith he to the eating of the Lambe First he is much mistaken in the word Salsamentum which I opine he taketh for sauce when it signifieth any salted thing fish flesh or other salt Edulia or victualls or must it needes be dipped in wine because there was no Salsamentum or sauce I am sure there is no salt in that inference Secondly they had soure herbs and their juyce saith the Rituall at the eating of the Paschall Thirdly this Institution was after the Paschall Supper But saith he Christ cared not for delicates True but first who saith Christ tooke any of that soppe Secondly who granteth the Embamma or sauce to be delicate Wine was more delicate then it It is not likely that it was dipped in water saith he True How followeth it that it was dipped in wine They had saith he both consecrated and unconsecrated wine I doubt not but in this Second Supper they had Esculenta poculenta condimenta Meates drinkes and sauces of great variety At the Pascall they had wine as I proved fully before At the second Supper saith the Kituall they had wine At the sacred Eucharist they had wine Yet that the soppe given to Iudas was dipped in wine cannot be proved or probabilized In Evangelio nihil habetur the Gospell doth not at all specialize saith Soto himselfe into what it was dipped Conjecture therefore had beene fitter than the positive answer That it was dipped in wine PAR. 9. The third Particular of the third Generall ANd now we are fallen upon the second Quaere whither Judas received the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist with Christ and his other Apostles yea or no Authorities to prove that Iudas did S. Augustine in the place last cited is confident that Iudas did receive the sacred Eucharist And in Evangelium Iohannis Tractatu 6. post medium Et sancta possunt obesse In bonis enim sancta ad salutem insunt in malis ad Iudicium Qui manducat bibit indignè Iudicium sibi manducat bibit Non ait quia illares mala est sed quia malus malè accipiendo ad Iudicium accipit bonum quod accipit Non enim mala erat Buccella quae tradita est Iudae a Domino Absit Medieus non daret Venenum salutem Medicus dedit sed indignè accipiendo ad pernitiem accêpit quia non paratus accepit Even holy things may hurt a man For holy things in good men tend to their salvation but in wicked men to their condemnation Hee that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh unto himselfe damnation Hee saith not that that thing was evill but that that evill one receiving it evilly received to his condemnation that good thing which he received For the Sop was not evill which was delivered to Iudas by the Lord. God forbid The Physitian would not deliver poyson he gave health But he that received it
Leper and every one that hath an issue and whosoever is defiled by the dead accordingly Azariah though he were a King yet because he was a Leper he dwelt in a severall house 2 King 15.5 And his Kingdome was ruled by his sonne Iotham as followeth If so strict a Command was to separate such as had onely bodily infirmities and such sickenesses as are Naturall even though they were no notorious sinners we may not imagine that Iudas whose sinne was above all bodily and ghostly spots was admitted to the most Holy of Holies PAR. 3. THirdly Ezech. 44.23 The Priests the Levites the Sonnes of Zadock that kept the charge of my Sanctuary shall come neere to my Table to minister unto me they shall teach my people the difference betweene the holy and profane and cause men to discerne betweene the uncleane and the cleane Therefore much more did Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Minister of holy things and the true tabernacle which the Lord pitched and not Man Heb. 8.2 By the separation of Iudas teach the Apostles and all the world the differences betweene the holy and prophane betweene the holy Apostles and prophane Iudas and caused men to discerne betweene the uncleane and the cleane when he sayd Ye are cleane but not all not Iudas the traytor Iohn 13.10 and 11. verses and therefore he sent him forth suddenly That thou doest doe quickely and Iudas went out immediately Iudas being as it were excommunicated and gone there followed the Most Sacred Supper PAR. 4. FOurthly did Christ when he came into the Temple looke round about all things Mark 11.11 Did Christ cast out all them who bought and sold in the Temple and overthrow the Tables of the money-changers and the seates of them that sold Doves Mat. 21.12 Did Christ more than ever he did before make a scourge of small cords and drive the prophaners of the Temple all of them out of the Temple and the sheepe and the Oxen Ioh. 2.15 Was Christ so zealous for the purification of the materiall Temple and shall wee not thinke hee did looke round about before he admitted any to his most sacred Table In this circumspection he saw Iudas and cast him out They who bought and sold in the Temple are held by divers to have meant well and to prepare the businesses the better for the sooner and better accommoding of the sacrifices for the service of the Temple yet did Christ cast out all these Now let any man say if he can that Christ admitted Iudas to better things than the Temple even to his owne sacred body and blood that Iudas who had no intentions even Iudas whom the devill before had entred into even Judas who had sold innocent humane blood or rather the blood of the Son of God Would Christ suffer the first institution of his last Divine Supper to be polluted by the presence of a Traytor Or did Iudas eate of that body which he murthered Or drinke of that blood which he caused to be shed Procul ô proculite profani Away away farre hence depart Each one that harbors a profane heart Profane Iudas was executed PAR. 5. FIfthly I have not sate with vaine persons neither will I goe in with dissemblers I have hated the Congregation of evill doers Gather not my soule with sinners nor my life with bloody men in whose hands is mischiefe and their right hand is full of bribes Psal 26.4.5.9.10 verses I will wash my hands in innocency and so will I compasse thy Altar O Lord ver 6. Shall Iudas who washed his hands and bathed his soule in blood partake of Christ who is our Altar Or would Christ administer the blessed Sacrament to Iudas who was a vaine person a dissembler an hated evill-doer a sinner a bloody sinner in whose hands were mischiefe and bribes farre was it from him PARA 6. SIxthly Have I not chosen you twelve and one of you is a Devill And he spake of Iudas Iscariot Ioh. 6.70 But Christ would never suffer a divell to be partaker of the blessed Sacrament of his body and blood Therefore before he administred that hee separated Iudas Iscariot Suppose the word Divell be taken for the instrument and agent of Satan and not the proper name of him whom we call the devill Antonimastieè figuratively grant it also that Iudas is called a devill because he imitated the workes of the devill Ioh. 7.44 Ye are of your father the devill the lusts of your father you will doe he was a murtherer from the beginning and abode not in the truth yet wee shall derogate from the puritie of the first institution to imagine that Christ would or did admit Iudas to taste of the Super-coelestiall Manna even while Iudas had the thoughts of murther in his soule PAR. 7. SEventhly 1 Cor. 10.20 21. verses I would not that yee should have fellowship with devills yee cannot drinke the Cup of the Lord and the Cup of devills yee cannot bee partakers of the Lords Table and the Table of devills God and Satan have severall distinct both Cups and Tables opposite one to the other Every man receiveth either the one or the other none partaketh both He who doth partake one doth not may not cannot saith the Apostle partake of the other There is a wall of partition of separation betweene those two Tables Iudas was discarded ere they began to take the Lords Supper at the Lords most sacred Table See the Schoolemens opinion concerning Judas his eating or not eating PAR. 8. EIghtly Maldonate on Iohn 13.2 saith Propteria pedes discipulorum lavit ut externe illo doceret Symbolo non debere homines impuros illotos ad sumendam sacrosanctam ac divinam Eucharistiam accedere Christ did therefore wash his Disciples feete that by that externall signe he might teach us that impure and unwashed men ought not to be admitted to the participation of the sacred and Divine Encharist And when all Christs washing and wiping made not Iudas cleane is there any likelihood Christ would admit the defiled Traytor to the most pure Supper of his Body and Blood PAR. 9. NInthly Heb. 10.26 If we sinne wilfully after we have received the knowledge of the truth as never man after so much knowledge sinned so wilfully as Iudas did there remaineth no more sacrifice for sinne but a certaine fearefull looking for of judgement and fiery indignation which shall devoure the adversaries ver 27. Therefore the holy Sacrament being a meanes of remission of sinnes remained not for Iudas to take PAR. 10. TEnthly and lastly Since Christ said What thou dost doe quickly by which words he did as it were bid him be gone before Grace was ended for the common Supper and that the gracelesse Traytor went out immediatly unlesse hee came backe againe presently which could not be because he went to the High Priests and gathered a band of men he could not possibly be at the participation of the holy Eucharist PAR. 11. The fourth
taken in the morning Secondly The Agapae were in the evening Thirdly Yet at the first they were both about the same time Let me say a little of each point 1. For the receiving of the Sacrament in the morning Tertullian ad uxorem thus Non sciot maritus quid secreto ante omnem cibum gustes Shall not thy husband know what thou dost eat in secret before thou dost caste a bit of any other meat And after him Saint Augustine would have the Eucharist eaten fasting propter honorem Corporis Dominici out of a religious reverence to the Lords Body More plainly the same Tertullian in lib. de corona militis Eucharistiae Sacramentum etiam antelucanis coetibus nec de aliorum manu quà m de prasidentium sumimus we receive the Sacrament of the blessed Eucharist even at our morning meetings and that at the hand of no other but of our owne Ministers And Pliny who was Rationalis Trajani Trajans Receiver and Accountant did certifie the Emperour that the Christians were wont to meet before day light ut sua sacra facerent to performe their divine service 2. Concerning the second point namely the Agapae that they were kept in the evening is as apparent Coena nostra de nomine rationem sui reddit Vocatur enim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 id quod Dilectio penes Gracos est The name of our Supper sheweth its nature that it is a Love-feast yet a Supper it was and so he called it Otherwhere he saith Coenulas nostras sugillatis you scoffe at our Suppers where the Agapae are not wholly excluded Otherwhere Coena nostra vocatur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Supper is called a Love-feast Quantiscunque sumptibus constat lucrum est pietatis nomine facere sumptum siquidem inopes quoque isto refrigerio juvamus How costly soever our Love-feasts be expence for pietie sake is gaine for the poore are refreshed with it Augustinus contra Faustum 20.20 Agapae nostrae pauperes pascunt sive frugibus sive carmbus Our Love-feasts doe feed the poore either with bread or meat one way or other 3. The third point is as evident from 1 Cor. 11. that the Primitive Christians kept no great distance of time betweene the sacred Eucharist and the Agapae For the Apostle proceedeth from the abuses of one to prevent the abuses which might fall in the other and speaketh as of things almost conjoyned And from hence the Gentiles objected that Christians at their Love-feasts did eat an Infant because the blessed Eucharist was in the same Agapae or neere the time administred and it being called spiritually the Flesh and the Blood of Christ the Christians were accused that they did eat mans flesh and drinke mans blood Alba-spinaeus doth answer very shallowly That this crime was forged even from the daies of Tiberius as Tertullian saith in his Apologetick I reply All this is true that it was a most horrid falshood an affected Lie coined in Tiborius his time But the question is not Whether the same were true or false to which only Alba-spinaeus supinely but idlely answereth but from what ground or probability the rumour did arise or how we may trace the report home to its owne forme to the bed from whence it first started I say againe It was because the Eucharist and the Agapae were conjoyned and were then kept at Night-season thereupon they found fault with the Suppers of Christians as sated with blood and humane flesh And perhaps in after times this was one true reason why they are the blessed Sacrament in the morning and the Agapae at night to remove that objection That in the night they feasted not themselves with the blood of an Infant Which practice though it staggered the report and someway diverted it and the Christians absoluti sunt were acquitted yet litura manebat the spot was not cleane taken away as Claudius was wont to say in another case aliquid haerebat but something still remained behind because the accusation was boldly vouched Inveterate rumours are not easily wiped out If Alba-spinaeus had observed that at their single separated Agapae there was no possibility of suspition of Infanticide or feeding on mans flesh or drinking of mans blood but that the words of the body and blood of Christ eaten and drunken might in the carnal mis-interpretation be Caput famae a ground though slippery for report and for such a report through their malice and infidelity he would then have said without a perhaps that for a good while after Christs time both the Eucharist and the Love-feasts did touch or kisse each the other and that thence arose the horrid imputation that their Suppers were accused as sceleris infames infamous for villanies to use Tertullians phrase Weigh this farther circumstance The Agapae were kept on the Lords day Diebus Dominicis celebrabant Agapas they celebrated their Love-feasts on the Lords day saith Alba-spinaeus himselfe observat 18. and then was the most blessed Eucharist administred that day above all other dayes that time of the day even about Supper time in imitation of our Lord. Tertullian ad uxorem 2.4 speaketh of Pagan husbands suspition of their Christian wives Quis ad Convivium Dominicum illud quod infamant sine sua suspitione dimittet Who can endure to let his wife goe to that infamous banquet of the Lord without jealousie What this Convivium Dominicum this Banquet of the Lord is falleth under enquiry Pamelius interpreteth it de Missa Christianorum of the Christians Masse Rhenanus Junius Mornaeus Casaubonus Exercitat 6. pag. 512. interpreteth it of the Eucharist Alba-spinaeus in his notes on this place of Tertullian thus farre concludeth wittily and truly That Tertullian speaketh of that Banquet or Feast that was infamous among the Gentiles Convivium illud quod infamant are the very words of Tertullian But they were not suspected of any incest at the Eucharist saith Alba-spinaeus or of any unlawfull lust then as from Pliny junior and others may appeare Therefore those scandals were only taken against the Agapae or Love-feasts What things are objected against the Christians in Justin adversus-Judaeos Apolog. 2. In Tertullian Apologet. and ad Scapulam De cultu foeminarum in Minutius Foelix in Eusebius 4.1 4. capitibus concerning their Suppers and Infanticide they are to be referred to the Agapae in which the Eucharist was neither consecrated nor received Thus farre White-thorne or Alba-spinaeus But if he had observed either that at their Agapae only there was no possibility of suspition concerning Infanticide and that at the Eucharist a carnall man might so interpret it or that the Eucharist was held by the Gentiles worse than the Agapae so much worse as Infanticide and devouring humane flesh and blood are worse than the sins of the eighth Commandement or that the holy Eucharist and the Agapae were kept both at one time about Supper time in the dayes Apostolicall and the Eucharist being first dispatched the suspition for lust
and antiquated by the Councell of Tarracon in Spaine So much for the Western Church But the Easterne Church forbade Night-offerings in the Laodicaean Councell Canon 5. and in the sixt Generall Councell cap. 79. So Pamelius on Cyprian Euthychianus the Pope you shall find it in Ivo parte 2. cap. 45. was so strict for the receiving of the Sacrament Fasting that he Decreed whosoever took the Sacrament after meat yea though it were but a petit refection if they were youths they should repent three dayes if they were of perfect age they should do seven dayes penance if they were Priests or Clergymen they should be punished for it twenty dayes together Goulartius on the same Epistle affordeth a liberty to the Pastors of the Churches That for the circumstance of times and places both of old and in our Age they did and may appoint the Communion to be kept either at early Morning or in the Day or at Night Adding they were forced in time of persecution to celebrate the Communion not once only but many times in one day And some Egyptians saith Socrates lib. 5. supped liberally before they received the Sacrament and yet did eate the holy Communion about Eventide Some of these have I cited out of Casaubone against himselfe For in the Morning saith he it should seeme by the authority of the Universall Church Jam inde à principio it was a custome almost every where to take the Eucharist Fasting That it was so about Augustines and Chrysostomes dayes I confesse with some limitation But that it was so jam inde à principio is hardly or not at all to be proved Let me ascend higher to Tertullians time and even here in the second Age of the Church he is pregnant enough that the blessed Sacrament was taken by the Christians Fasting Non sciet maritus quid secretò ante omnem cibum gustes shall not your husband know what you take secretly before any meate is tasted by you Tertulliam ad Vxerem 2.5 The same Tertullian Apolegetic cap. 2. witnesseth that Plinius Secundus wrote to Trajan that the Christians had coetus Antelucanos ad canendum Christo Deo Early meetings before day to sing to Christ and to God But sing they did at their Communions And they did saith Pliny seipsos Sacramento obstringere Binde themselves by the Sacrament which was the Christians receiving of the Sacrament as Baronius opineth ad annum Christi 104. for they bound not themselves to any evill but from doing evill saith Pliny And this was ante Lucem before day saith the said Pliny And yet the same Tertullian de Coronâ militis 3. cap. saith Eucharisiiae Sacramentum in tempore victus omnibus mandatum à domino etiam antelucanis coetibus sumimus Some received it at Night some at Meale-time some ere Break of day Rhenanus on the place of Tertullian Non solum victus tempore erant soliti accipere Eucharistiam sed etiam in congregationibus quae nonnunquam ante exortum diem fiebant An ingenuous confession That the primitive Church in the second Age was wont at Meale-time that is not excluding Supper to receive the Sacrament and yet that some times they received the same before the Day-spring Radevicus relateth of Constantine that either alone or with very small company or retinew he beheld the meetings of the Priests in the Churches before day-light Cyprianus Epistola 63. ad Coecilium Paragraph 12. acknowledgeth the use of receiving in sacrificiis matutinus in their morning sacrifices yet faulting such as received the Sacrament with water only as fearing least through the sent and tast of wine they might smell of the blood of Christ and confuting those who receiving the Communion with water only in the Morning yet when they came to supper they offered mixtum Calicem the sacred Cup with wine and water Cyprian addeth ibid. Christ ought to make his offering about Eventide that the houre of offring might shew the Eventide of the World I answer The houre of the Paschall offring was exactly praescribed But the houre or time of administring the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist was free and arbitrary yet the Prophet might fitly allude to Christ Psal 141.2 when he said Let the lifting up of my hands be as the Evening sacrifice But we saith Cyprian do celebrate the Lords Resurrection in the Morning The sense is we offer the holy Communion in the Morning in remembrance of the Lords Resurrection For certainly say I he Arose in the Morning Mat. 28.1 as it began to dawn that is very early in the Morning Mark 16.1 Early when it was yet dark John 20.1 and yet even Then was the stone taken from the Sepulcher the undoubted signe of Christs Resurrection and by his Arising buried the Jewish Sabbath which by his death was dead before The custome of receiving the holy Sacrament at Night continued in some places even unto the dayes of Augustine saith Pamelius on the fore-cited place of Cyyprian So was it observed by the Aegyptians neare Alexandria and by them of Thebâis saith Socrates and Thebâis was a whole region bounding on Aethiopia Plinius 5.9 Gregorius Nazians Oratione in sanctum Baptisma saith Christ observed the Mystery of the Paschall After Supper and in the House Wee in the Churches and Before Supper And the Mystery of the Paschall I take to be nothing else but the holy Eucharist For what have we to do else with the Paschall Mstyeries The Paschall was a type The Eucharist the mystery typified the Paschall the Ceremony and shadow the Eucharist was the substance and body Leo Magnus in an high straine thus The old observance in the Judaicall Passeover is taken away by the New Sacrament Sacrifice is translated and passed over into a Sacrifice Blood excludeth blood And the legall Festivity whilst or as it is changed is fulfilled PAR. 6. IT is cleare from Tertullian that the Primitive Church had their Triclinia as I proved before and did lye along or discumbere when they did eate their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is also as evident that because it was irreligious to use such gesturesin the hurches that the Laodicaean Councell forbade any to Feast or to eate their Love-Suppers in the Churches or in the Temples of God to make beds to lye on Justin Martyr also is punctuall both that the people sate in Sermon time and prayed standing in Apologia 2. These were changeable Rites and not observed a like in the Churches Before I leave this place it is considerable what Augustinus Januario Epistola 118. cap. 6. teacheth us That the Corinthians whom the Apostle reproved and amended did at their tables mingle the Sacrament with their own meat which was a grosse abuse And the same abuse is remembred by Gregory Nazianzene Oratione in Sanctum lavacrum By Epiphanius toward the end of his 3. Book of the Fashions of the Primitive Church By Chrysostome Homil. 27. on the 1 Epist to the
blood dwelleth in me and I in him 7. To be an antidote against dayly sins Panem nostrum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Give us this day our daily bread Here the Eucharist is called Panis supersubstantialis our supersubstantiall or Heavenly bread yea saith Ambrose it is called Panis quotidianus our daily bread because it is a medicine and a remedy against daily sins de Sacramentis 5.4 8. To further our spirituall Life And therefore it is not only set down negatively John 6.53 Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood ye have no life in you but it is further positively averred I am that bread of Life ver 48. and ver 50. This is that bread which commeth downe from Heaven that a man may eat thereof and not dye And ver 51. I am the living bread The bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the Life of the World And most apparently in the 54. ver who so eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath aeternall Life For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed ver 55. and ver 57. as the Living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father so he that eateth me even he shall live by me Lastly Cardinall Cusanus Exercitationum 7. Eucharistia est supremae charitatis Sacramentum The blessed Eucharist is the Sacrament of the most heavenly gift of charity When Christ had loved his unto the end because all the rest did not suffice to perfect Charity unlesse he gave himselfe for all of which the Eucharist was the wonderfull mystery Recipit se in manus suas in Sacramento fregit distribuit He taketh himselfe into his own hands and in the Sacrament brake and distributed himselfe Like as if bread were alive and should break and distribute it selfe that they might live to whom it was distributed and it selfe should dye by being distributed So Christ gave himselfe to us as if he did so distribute himselfe to us by dying Nota. that he might give life unto us In the same place he calleth it the Sacrament of Filiation all doubt being taken away concerning the Filiation of God For if Bread can passe over into the Son of God therefore Man may who is the end of bread Vide Dionysi Carthus in Luc. 22. fol. 258. Much more may be said but other points draw me to them THE PRAYER I Am not worthy O Lord holy Father of the least of thy benefits yea I have deserved that the full vyals of thy heaviest wrath should be powred down upon mee for I have many wayes offended thee and after manifold both vows and endevours to repent after teares sighs groanes and my contrite heart hath been offered on thy Altar yet I arknowledge my relapses and recidivations Good God let thy goodnesses strive against my wickednesse and fully overcome it Cleanse mee though thou slay mee and though thou shouldest condemne mee who wholly trust in thee yet Sanctify me thy Servant for Iesus Christ his sake my blessed Redeemer Amen CHAP. III. and fist Generall Which is divided into 5. Sections or particulars The first whereof is contained in this Chapter And therein is shewed 1. After what words Christ began this Third or Last Supper 2. A Digression 1. Concerning the division of the Bible into Chapters and Verses 2. Against filthy prophaners of Churches and Church-yards 3. Against Conventicles 1. What course Christ tooke in the perfecting of this Third or Last Supper First he removed Judas The ceremonies of the Grecians at their Sacrifices S. Augustines error who thought Judas did eat the bread of the Lord Sacramentally A more probable opinion that Christ did not institute the blessed Eucharist till Judas was gone forth After what words Christ began his Third Supper The word When doth not always note the immediation of times or things consequent 2. A discourse by way of digression The first part thereof Concerning the division of the Bible into Chapters and Verses Neither the Evangelists nor the Apostles divided their writings into Chapters and Verses Neither Christ nor his Apostles in the New Testament cited Chapter or Verse of the Old Testament Probable that the Books of the Old Testament were from the beginning distinguished and named as now they are And began and ended as now they do The Iewes of old divided the Pentateuch into 54. Sections Readings or Lectures The Iewish Section is either Incompleate termed Parashuh or Distinction signed with three P. P. P. Compleate stiled Sedar an Order marked with three S. S. S. All the Jewish Lectures read over Once a yeare The first Lecture what time of the yeare it began At what place of Scripture every every one of the 54 Lectures begins and ends Six books of Psalmes according to the Iewish division Every Lecture of the Law consisted of 136 verses Antiochus rent the Law in pieces God more regardeth every Letter of the Law than the Starres of Heave 3. Puritans taxed who taxour Church for mangling the Word of God and patching up a Lesson The bookes of the Bible were not at the first divided by Chapters nor the Chapters by Verses as now they are The Iews had by heart all the Old Testament 4. Traskites censured The Iews shall be converted to Christians not Christians to Iewes Secondly the second part of the Digression Against â—lthy prophaners of Churches and Church-yards more especially against them of the City of Exeter Nero bepissed Venus tombe The Heathens very zealous against such prophanation Caecilius his opinion concerning it Vespasian forbade it The Authors Apology His petition both to the Clergie and Laity of Exeter Gods Law Deut. 23.12 against filthinesse The Cats and the Birds cleanlinesse God and his holy Angels walke in the midst of our Temples That Law of God not Ceremoniall or Judiciall but Morall The Esseni diligent observers of it Cleanlinesse a kind of Holinesse Vncleannesse in the Camp was an uncleannesse in the Jews themselves God commandeth Cleanlinesse and Sweetnesse for mans sake not for his own Vncleanlinesse makes God turne away from us God a lover of internall and externall Cleannesse The Abrahemium the first Church-yard in the world Jacobs reverence to the place where he slept Some places more holy than other The Authors exhortation in this respect to the Magistrates of Exeter 5 Campanella the Friar examined and censured He learned Art magicke of the Divell Every one hath his Tutelary Angell as Saint Hierome and Campanella are of opinion Campanella healed of the spleene as hee saith by Charmes The name of a Friar more scandilous than of a Priest Proverbs and Taunts against Friars and Monks A Friar A Lyar. Friars railed against both by Ancient and Moderne Writers Priests and Jesuits at debate who shall be the chiefest in authoritie Friars Deifie the Pope Friars lashed by Pope Pius the second â—ampanella a prisoner for twenty yeeres together The Jesuits nipped by the Sorbonists banished by the
it signified The Administring and Receiving of the Eucharist called the Supper of the Lord. Christs Table in his Kingdome The Iews Tables in Christs time were not on the Ground but standing Tables The use of Tables is to eat and drink on them To serve Tables what it is The most holy Eucharist in Ignatius his dayes was celebrated on Tables Christ given For us in the Sacrifice Per modum Victimae To us in the Sacrament Per modum Epuli Banquets most commonly set on Tables Altars are for Offerings and Tables for Eating Christ the Altar Offering and Priest Christ used a Table at the first Consecration The Christians in the Primitive Church in times of Persecution used Tables where ever they came They made use of unconsecrated Tables Cups and Vessels The name and use of Altar vindicated The Devill had Tables erected to him by the Gentiles God had Tables erected to him by the Christians 6. The fifth Section or Particular of the fifth Generall wherein is shewed That the holy Eucharist was administred by Christ on a distinct Table Truth commanded not forbidden to be searched out A sting at Campanella who ascribes sense to stocks and stones and Reason to bruit Beasts Of two opinions the most probable is to be preferred Most probable the Deifying Sacrament was celebrated at a distinct Table Proved by Arguments 1. With reference to the Parties Recipient De maximis maxima cura est habenda Domitians folly Nothing equall to Christs Body and Blood 2. Inregard of the party Administrant Christ rose up from the Paschâll Table to wash the Apostles feet Probable he did the like to wash their Soules Christs humility at his Prayers A Story of a devout Cardinall Christs holy Gesture when he blessed any thing At the first Institution of any great matter mor ereverence is used than afterwards Diver se instances to this purpose All Christs Actions as well as his person pleased God PARAGRAPH I. FIrst therefore I resume that which before I proved and no man can justly deny that the upper Chamber wherein they are the Paschall and the Common Supper was a well furnished Chamber For it was a Guest-Chamber Marke 14.14 which always useth to be best adorned It was a large upper room so large if Dionysius Carthusianus opine not amisse as that it received the 120 Disciples mentioned Acts 1. vers 15. vide Dionys Carth. in Luc. 22. fol. 257. Act. 1. fol. 76. Furnished and prepared not with meat but with all other necessary utensils For the Apostles themselves were commanded There to make ready vers 15. and they did make ready the Passeover vers 16. Therefore the Table was not furnished with meat to their hands but the room with decent houshold-stuffe It was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It was not only Mensa strata a spread Table The whole upper Chamber was Coenaculum grande stratum a large well accommoded room And in it might well be lesser Tables round Tables Livery Tables Tables to be used if need were with their faire furniture It had been a simple poore room if there had been nothing els but only what was for present use or what is particularly specialized were there no chayres no stooles no cushions no water no linnen to bee spred or spred at other boords PAR. 2. Secondly I hold it safest to say Christ did not institute his most holy Eucharist as they were eating other meats nor mixed Sacred things with Civil For in the Law of Moses he forbad such medleyes Deuter. 22.9 Thou shalt not sow thy Vineyard with diverse seeds Lest the fruit of thy Vineyard be defiled Thou shalt not plough with an Oxe and an Asse together vers 10. Thou shalt not weare a garment of diverse sorts as of wollen and linnen together vers 11. And can you think that the most Holy of Holies the immaculate Jesus Christ would make a mingle-mangle of Sacred and Common meat of Sacred and Common wine and whilst they were eating common food did consecrate the blessed Sacrament of his Body and Blood Obje Yea but it is so according to the letter As the◠were eating Sol. If you will go strictly according to the letter you must also say whilst meat was in their mouths whilst they were chewing it with their teeth Before their mouths were empty Christ gave them the Eucharist Now let any Christian heart judge whether it were not an indignity to the Sacrament to bee at such time administred whether the Letter be alwayes strictly to bee insisted upon Repl. If yet againe you urge the Letter Resp I answer that S. Luke and S. Paul say expresly Christ gave the Eucharist After Supper Luke 22.20 Likewise 1 Cor. 11.25 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which may be more largely interpreted than thus When Hee had Supped as our last translation hath it even thus After they all had Supped Therefore it was not done in Supper time or whilst they were eating And upon comparison of those foure places tell me now which standeth with most reason That hee gave the blessed Eucharist as they were chewing their meat or that it was done after Supper especially S. Paul writing last of them and being taught of the Lord Jesus himselfe the manner how it was administred I received of the Lord 1 Cor. 11.23 Again did Christ say Matth. 9.16 No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment neither do men put new wine into old bottles but they put new wine into new bottles and both are preserved vers 17. And can wee think himselfe would put the New sanctifying food of Grace and of his Body and Blood into those mouths which were eating and feeding upon the Common food of the Old Law even as they were Eating Or is it likely Christ gave Thanks whilst they were Eating But Thanks he gave as many Greek copies have it Matth. 26 26. And this Thanks began the Eucharist Or consecrated he the New Sacrament whilst they were eating their Ordinary food Christ blessed the bread ere he brake it Matth. 26.26 Did they eat whilst he was blessing the bread Ezechiel 44.23 The Priests shall teach my people the difference between the Holy and profane and cause men to discerne between the uncleane and the cleane Wherefore let no man imagine that Christ would make a mingle-mangle of earthly and heavenly matters of bodily and spirituall food and give them his Sacred Body and Blood As they were eating a Common Supper Edentibus illis may signifie 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 properly That the Apostles were eating whilst Christ was discoursing That Christ ate little and conferred much and rather tasted meat than continued Feeding as the Apostles did Consider these points First He took bread 1 Cor. 11.23 Secondly He gave Thanks vers 24. Thirdly He blessed the bread Matth. 26.26 Fourthly Hee brake the bread ibid. Fifthly Hee gave it to them Luke 22.19 Sixthly He said Take Eat Mark 14.22 Were the Apostles eating
the Eucharist which likewise he did not need nor want To this last point he either answereth nothing which he seldome doth or else it was suppressed by higher authority or his answer is involved in these words Quicquid de hoc sit and in this sense whether Christ received the blessed Sacrament or received it not I will not now speak I will passe it over or the like Aquinas Parte 3. Quaest 81. Articulo 1. handleth this point scholastically Whether Christ took his own Body and Blood And with his authorities and reasons is for the Affirmative though he saith Others think the contrary Soto likewise 4. Sententiarum Distinctione 12. Quaest. 2. Articulo 1. propoundeth the same quick question Whether Christ did Receive his own Body and Blood And he answereth stealing almost all from Aquinas There have not been wanting who have said Christ gave his Body to his Disciples but himselfe took it not Luther de Abrogandâ Missâ privatâ resolveth Christ took not that blessed Sacrament and thence collecteth if Soto belye him not that other Priests ought not to take it but to give Both kinds to the Laity If Luther so said Soto well reproveth him and confuteth him because by Luthers argument the Priests are of worse condition and in a worse state than the people Which none but a popular Claw-back or Calfe of the people will say Aquinas his Inference is much sounder Because the Ministers with us receive it first therefore we conclude Christ first took it For say I Christ commanded us to do as He did And the Church evermore since Christs time doing so that is the Priests not giving the blessed Sacrament till themselves had first received it followeth unforcedly that Christ took it first There be many Canons of the Church which command the Priests first of all to receive So is it in the Councell of Toledo If they that Sacrifice eate not they are guilty of the Lords Sacrament 1 Corinth 10.18 Are not they which eate of the Sacrifices partakers of the Altar For if to participate be to eate and the Sacrificers be the chiefe partakers it resulteth They must first eate The like was practised in the old Law The Priest was served even of the peoples offrings before the people themselves 1 Sam. 2.13 c. If you say that was but an usurpation and prophanation of Ely his sonnes then see the Law it selfe Leviticus 6.25 Where the burnt offring is killed shall the sin-offring be killed before the Lord it is most holy and verse 26. The Priest that offereth it for Sinne shall eate it Leviticus 7.29 c. You may see the Priests portion of the Peace-offrings by a statute for ever Numbers 15.20 Yee shall offer up a cake of the first of your dough Of the first of your dough yee shall give unto the Lord Vers 21. But especially see Deut. 18.3 4. verses and Numb 18.9 c. What God reserved for Aaron his sonnes daughters and house-hold that were cleane All the best of the oyle All the best of the wine and of the wheate the First fruits of them that offer and whatsoever is First ripe in the Land The people of the old Law shall rise up in Judgement against Our people who think the least and worst things are too good for the Clergy though God hath committed to us the word of Reconciliation and given us a power above Angels and Archangels in those most powerfull un-metaphoricall proper words John 20.23 Whosesoever sins yee Remit they are remitted unto them and whosesoever sins yee Retaine they are retained The people of the Law enjoyed not Their part till the Priests had first Their parts not ought Our people to participate of our sacred offerings Till the Priests have taken Their parts Soto his proofe for the Affirmative is a ridiculous one David fuit figura hujus David was a figure hereof who 1 Samuel 21.13 c. before Achish Suis se manibus referebat sic Christus suum corpus suis tenebat manibus suo sumebat ore So Christ held his owne body in his hands and received it with his mouth I answer there are no such words nor words tending to that purpose in the Vulgar either of Hentenius or Saint-andreanus or in Vatablus or the Interlineary nor in the Greeke or Hebrew Nor can I judge from what words in that Chapter Soto did gather his wild protasis or first part of the typicall comparison A weake proofe doth harme to a good cause and so hath Soto done in this point The authority of Hierom in his Epistle to Hedibia de Decem quaestionibus quaestione 2. Tomo 3. fol. 49. reacheth home Dominus Iesus Ipse conviva et convivium ipse comedens qui comeditur The Lord Jesus was himselfe both guest and feast He was both eater and thing eaten Act. 1.1 Iesus began to doe and teach his actions led the way his voyce followed He first Received then Administred He first celebrated the Eucharist then made his Sermon in coenaculo or Sermon in the Supping Chamber Before be Instituted his Baptisme he was Baptized When he said to his Apostles Doe this in remembrance of me if followeth he did take it First Himselfe The Glosse on Ruth 3. saith Christ did eate and drinke That Supper when he delivered the Sacrament of his Body and Blood to his Disciples Soto bringeth this objection When Christ said Take and Eate the question is Whether He did eate or no If you say He had eaten this is against that opinion because he had not Then consecrated the bread For by the subsequent words he did consecrate and say This is my body If He had not eaten then it is apparent He did not before his Disciples For reaching it to them he said This is my Body I answer saith Soto He first broke the bread into Thirteene pieces which when he had in a dish together in his hands He said Take eate this is my body receiving his own part First For he kept Feast with them and the nature of a Feast requireth that the Inviter feed with the Invited He fed with them in the First Supper He dranke with them in the Second Supper In the Best Supper and the Supper which was most properly his Owne did he nor Eate nor Drinke Barradius thus Accepit ex mensâ panem azymum benedixit in partes Duodecem fregit eas consecravit unam sumpsit reliquas distribuit He tooke from the Table unleavened bread He blessed it He brake it into twelve parts He consecrated it One He tooke the Other he distributed Therefore even our adversary being our judge He was at a Table Iudas was not present for then there should have been Thirteene pieces or morsels Christ himselfe received himselfe So they cannot tax me for these opinions or these opinions for novelty but they must needs condemne Barradius and diverse others of their own side Chrysostome homilia 83. on Matthew 26. Christ dranke himselfe
not themselves from the usance of the Church in this specialtie For Augustine Tom. 7. contra literas Petiliani 2.23 pag. 22. saith to Petilian and his adherents I doe instance and make rehearfall unto you of a man who lived with you into whose hands yee placed or put the Eucharist Ruffinus Ecclesiastica Historiae 6.33 saith of Novatus or Novatianus That when he divided the Sacrament to the people he held the Hands of the Receivers till he made them sweare by what they held in their Hands and then they did Sumere They did accipere manu Sumemere ore Tooke it with their Hand and received it with their Mouth And I doubt not but these holy ancient Fathers followed Christs celebration in such things as he commanded When they did Reserve the Sacrament and carry it to their houses I hope they tooke it not into their Mouths they carried it not in their Mouths but tooke it in their Hands Accepto corpore Domini reservato saith Tertullian in the end of his booke de Oratione It was first received and this was not within their Mouths but with their Hands If it had beene in their Mouths it was not so fit to be Reserved And how vaine had it beene to take it out of their Mouths and to reserve it to that end that they might put it another time into their owne Mouthes or into other folkes Mouthes either If you plead it was reserved for the sicke Gregorius Nazianzenus Oratione 11. in laudem Gorgoniae saith If Gorgonia's Hand treasured up any part of the Antitypes of Christs honoured body and blood shee bedewed it or mingled it with her teares The word If not betokening any doubt but implying a certainty that sometimes shee did weepe over the consecrated mysteries which her Hand had Reserved The word If being taken for When. So it is used 1 King 8.46 If they sinne against thee for there is no man that sinneth not I conclude with the binding Rubrick of out Lyturgy that the Priests or Priest must deliver the Communion to the people in their Hands Kneeling Maldonate on Matth. 26. confesseth it further proofe needed not Yet was Maldonate too blame to say The same Church with better Counsell begins to give the Sacrament not into their hands but into their mouthes because there was both more reverence and lesse danger To call that better Counsell which varied from Christs Institution I like not Nor doth Maldonats similitude hold For if the Churches are the Eucharist fasting varying from Christ yet they had Apostolicall Authority to guide them which the Handlesse and Mouthlesse Receivers wanted Some Reject things really Given and Tendred Matth. 7.9 Yee Reject the Commandements of God Jeremy 8.9 Some rejected the Word of the Lord. Luke 7.30 The Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the Counsell of God against themselves 1 Samuel 10.19 The Israelites rejected their God Is not in those words included a plaine offer and withall a Not-accepting of the Tendry Remarkably is it said Joh. 12.48 He that rejecteth me and receiveth-not my words the same Word shall judge him at the last day Rejecting is expounded by Not-receiving if it signifie not worse also So some Refused to heare Gods Word Jeremy 13.10 Ammon refused to eate 2 Sam. 13.9 though the cakes were powred out before him Elishah though he was urged to take a gift yet refused 2 Kings 5.16 Yet for all this I cannot think but when Christ said to his Disciples Take they did Take it and when he said Eate they did Eate For it argueth Obedience to their Master and their conformity to partake of the mysteries of Christ PAR. 6. THe next part of our Saviours words is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eate That Christ gave Judas a Sop is cleare a dipped Sop Joh. 14.26 that Iudas received it I hold as cleare Iohn 14.30 He then having received the Sop went immediately out That Iudas did eate it is not expressed nor so cleare He might possibly Take it and not Eate it but let it lie on his trencher Besides the Sop beeing given for a Manifesto that Iudas was the onely Traytor perhaps he was not willing to swallow the Disgust as he accompted it and the Sop also But it may be well answered Iudas was so surprized with the unexpected Offer his reason wit and senses so clouded his soule amazed with such arisings and fumes of his treasonable plot in one word so given over to Satan that what another man yea what he himselfe would have done at another Time either not Receive or not Eate he certainly received and in likelihood swallowed If the words of Scripture be closer followed and more forcibly urged That Iudas having received the Sop went out immediately and therefore he did receive it onely but not Eate it I answer The end of his Receiving was onely to Eate it and there was no great distance of time betweene the Receiving and Eating of the Sop but he might put his hand to his mouth even almost in an instant or in tempore penè imperceptibili in the twinckling of an eye and swallow without chewing a moystned soft little glibbery Sop that his going out immediately excludeth not his Eating Besides the word Receive may extend not onely to his Taking of it with his hand but to the Eating of it also For there is a receiving into Ones mouth and it is not possible to be proved that Iudas did not So receive it nor Eate it And it may be well beleeved because so many holy Fathers have declared themselves to think He did Eate the Sop. I know but few that deny it but many affirme it Some indeed say He carried away the Sop and shewed it to the High Priests and thence framed a forged accusation against Christ or an excuse for his own treachery as if without cause he would not have betrayed him A man having his hidden sinnes revealed groweth worse and more madd in sinning Per scelera semper sceleribus tutum est iter said One The safest way to commit sinne Is by new sinnes still to beginne Lucas Brugensis on Matth. 26. saith That after the word Eate the reason was given And the word Enim is to be understood Indeed it may well be understood because at the delivery of the Cup it is expressed Matth. 26.28 For this is my blood of the new Testament And yet the sense seemeth to me as full Take Eate This is my Body as if it had beene written Take Eate For this is my Body I would not willingly adde any new sense to Scripture no more than I would diminish a letter from it especially if as it is the sense may be well accepted Carolostadius and never any before him that I have read of fancieth That when Christ said these words This is my Body he put his finger to his breast shewed himselfe and meaned thus Here sitteth my Body which shall be given for you This Sleidan reporteth in the Fift booke of his Commentaries
And this may seeme to favour him Jesus said to the Iewes Destroy This Temple and in three dayes I will rayse it up Joh. 2.19 And the holy Apostle expoundeth it Christ spake of the temple of his body verse 21. Tolet in his Commentary on the place saith It is certaine that when Christ said This temple he did by his Gesture and the motion of his hands demonstrate Himselfe and pointed not at the materiall Temple built of stone so might he here doe Tolet his Collection is but probable For Christ might point at either at neither but leave them in suspence Many times did Christ use verball aequivocations as I have proved in my Miscellanies that is he so spake that his words might have a double Construction though he adhorred mentall Reservation Concerning Carolostadius I must needs say he was one of them who in those precipitious and whirling times did strive to rayse his owne name by inventing most new devices And this was one of them which is not seconded by any other Christian Divines which I have seene but disliked by many For when Christ said This is my Body which shall be given for you as Carolostadius hath it is as if he pointed at and did meane his naturall passiive body What did they eate They did eate none of That body nor was it Broken till after the Celebration of the holy Eucharist he did suffer But the holy Scripture hath it in the Present tense Luk. 22.19 This is my Body which Is given for you And vers 20. This Cup Is the new Testament in my Blood which Is shed for you Can you think O Carolostadius that when he gave them the Cup he touched his breast and pointed at and meaned the blood in the veynes lanes and hidden alleys of his mortall body So 1 Corinth 11.24 This is my body which Is broken for you And this Cup Is the new Testament in my blood vers 25. Likewise Matth. 26.28 This is my Blood which Is shed and so Mark 14.24 For though it be a truth most certaine that Christ his naturall body and naturall blood was broken given and shed afterwards in his Passion yet Carolostadius was too blame to change the Tense to invent an imagined gesture of Christ which is impossible to be proved Lastly to broach a new opinion contrary to all Divines from which refulteth That they did eate onely bare Bread but no way the Body of the Lord and dranke onely the fruit of the Grape but no way dranke the Blood of the Lord. Indeed the Vulgate hath it Frangêtur in the Future tense is Shall be broken for you But it starteth aside from the Originall Nor standeth it with sense reason or example that the Future is taken for the Present tense since it is a retrograde course against nature But the Present tense is often used for the Future foreshewing the infallible certainty of what will or shall come both in Propheticall and Evangelicall Writings Esay 60.1 The glory of the Lord Is risen upon thee And yet he speaketh of Christ and his comming And Revel 22.12 Behold I come quickly and my reward is with me And Yet he commeth not though it were said above fifteene hundred yeares passed But most undoubtedly He Shall come quickly Celeritate motus though not celeritate temporis when he beginneth to come he shall come speedily though he shall not quickly begin to come PAR. 7. IT succeedeth This is my Body Matth. 26.26 which is Given for you Luk. 22.19 Which is Broken for you 1 Corinth 11.24 This doe in remembrance or for a remembrance of Me as both S. Luke and S. Paul have it And he tooke the Cup and gave thankes and gave it to them saying Drinkeyee All of it for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sinnes Matth. 26.27 c. It is thus changed Mark 14.23 He gave it to them and They all dranke of it And S. Mark leaves out these words For the remission of sinnes S. Luke maketh the alteration thus Likewise also he gave them the Cup after Supper saying This Cup is the New Testament In my blood which is shed for You Luk. 22.20 Another diversity is yet 1 Corinth 11.25 Likewise after Supper he tooke the Cup when he had supped saying This Cup is the new testament In my blood This doe yee as oft as yee drinke it in remembrance of mee Matth. 26.29 Christ saith I will not drinke henceforth of the fruit of the Vine And this was After the sacred Supper But saith Adam Contzen A Matthaeo non suo ordine ad finem coenae recitantur ea verba de Genimine vitis S. Matthew reciteth not in Order the words concerning the fruit of the Vine nor were they spoken After Supper Perhaps say I they were spoken Twice Here if ever is an ample field to expatiate in these words have tortured the wits of the learnedst men since the dayes of the Apostles Et adhuc sub judice lis est And yet they are not determined And as the Areopagites in an inexplicable perplexity deferred the finall determination till the last day so the Roman Church might have deferred their definitive sentence and over-hard censure even till then especially since they confesse that the manner of Transubstantiation is inenarrable Whereupon I am resolved to forbeare farther disquisition and to lose my selfe in holy devotion and admiration that I may find my Christ The sayle is to large for my boat This Sea is too tempestuous for my Shallop The new Cut of Erasmus Sarcerius in his Scholia on the place of S. Matthew thus shuffleth it The Materiall causes are Bread and Wine and the things under them understood and present the Body and Blood The Formal causes are to Eat and to Drink The Efficient causes Christ who did institute it and his Word The Effectuall causes to have Remission of sins I say this may rather go among the finall causes And to make Effects to be Effectuall causes introduceth new Logick new Termes into Logick Besides he omitteth the Finall cause which is the first mover to the rest Divinity and the mysteries of it are not to bow down to any ones Logick Oh! but will you now say leus in the last Act in the last Scene Will you be silent where he and she Apprentices where Women and illiterate Tradesmen rayse themselves upon their startups prick up their eares and tyre their tongues 1. I answer If I should enter into the lists of controversie and take upon me to decide and determine all the doubts which concerne the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist and to untye all the knots which may be made from those words I am perswaded you might sooner see an end of me than I of this Work For I am wearied and tyred already This toyle which I have performed and the labour which I have bestowed hath cost me full deare My sedentary life hath made my
should receive the blessed Sacrament sitting or leaning on his elbow or halfe-sitting halfe-kneeling or looking on the one side or smiling or using unseemly motion though those Gestures be not in singled particularities forbid yet they are a profanation of the Lords Supper as being forbidden in the Generall Rules First That comeliest and devoutest Gesture be used in holiest matters Sancta sanctè Secondly Let all things be done to edifying 1 Cor. 14.26 Thirdly Let all things be done in order vers 4. The rest will I set in order when I come saith S. Paul 1 Cor. 11.34 Fourthly Rom. 14.17 The Kingdome of God is not in meats nor drinks but righteousnesse and peace and joy in the holy Ghost For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace as there followeth Fiftly Let all things be done decently 1 Cor. 14.40 A comelinesse is commended Ecclesiastes 5.18 1 Cor. 11.13 It is comely that a women pray unto God uncovered Comelinesse is taught by nature as it there followeth Sixtly The meetings in sacred convocations are for good nor for evill We are come together for the better not for the worse And the contrary is reproved by Saint Paul 1 Cor. 11.17 Lastly God ruleth things Inferior by Superior things farther off by things nearer to him The people must not prescribe to the Magistrates nor to themselves Laws in things indifferent but the Governors and Pastors to the People Whosoever therefore at the receiving of the blessed Eucharist doth any thing misbeseemingly sinneth against these or some of these Rules and so sinneth against Christ I proved before that at the holy Receiving a prayer is preparatory and made for every one of us And as the Minister devoutly prayeth doth not thy heart say Amen and is not Amen truly explaned and enlarged thus O Lord I confesse this is thy Body this is thy Blood yea it is thine own Selfe which thou vouchsafest unto me and I do now Receive Oh preserve my body and soule unto everlasting life I eat in remembrance that thy Body was broken and that thou dyedst for me I drink in remembrance that thy Blood was shed and powred out for me Lord I am thankfull and I feed on thee in my heart by Faith Lord I beleeve pardon my wandring thoughts unite me unto thee make me from henceforth holy and conformable to thy selfe and let this spirituall food strengthen me in the way to Heaven To conclude in the Divine M. Hookers words Oh my God thou art True Oh my Soule thou art blessed He who useth not these or some of these or the like faithfull thankfull precatory ejaculations both at the instant act of receiving of the sacred Communion and presently after yea and whilst the Minister is praying for him he hath an obdurate heart he discerneth not the Lords Body but eateth and drinketh his owne damnation Now Reader judge again if a man will not kneele when the Minister prayeth for him and that openly If he will not kneele when he powreth out his hearty prayers unto God whether he sinneth not haynously Certainly God condemneth his foolish obstinacy and so I passe to another point PAR. 3. THe next is What names are given unto the holy Sacrament And here I will first speak of the Bread and of the Wine severally and shew you what names have been given them both in the Scriptures and by the Fathers and then will I speak of them joyntly together The hallowed Bread in the sacred Word of God is called the Lords Body broken for us 1 Cor. 11.24 discernable to be the Lords body vers 20. stiled also the Communion of the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 which Communion is not in the use of Scripture a proper name of the Eucharist but a declaration of its power and efficacy by making us one with Christ and by partaking the Sacrament with our brethren being a speciall meanes to the Communion of Saints though the Fathers make it a proper appellation saith Casaubone Act. 2.46 it is said They continued Breaking of Bread Domatim 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at home or from house to house In which place it is varied Communicabant in fractione Eucharistiae They did Communicate in breaking of bread where the Translator makes use of a Greek word which he doth not often It is farther called Panis Sanctus Panis Benedictus Panis Eucharisticus Panis Coelestis Holy Bread Blessed Bread Eucharisticall Bread Heavenly Bread John 6.32 The Fathers appellations for it Oratio solvenda est Corpore Domini accepto Tertullian de Oratione cap. ultimo Upon taking the Lords Body we end our Prayers The same in lib. de Idololatria cap. 7. saith some did Manus admovere Corpori Domini move their hands to take the Lords Body Irenaeus lib. 4. cap. 34. E terrâ panis percipiens invocationem Dei non jam communis panis est fed Eucharistia ex rebus duabus constans terrenâ coelesti Earthly bread Sanctified by prayer is not now common bread but the Eucharist consisting of earthly and heavenly things It is a Medicine of immortality an Antidote against death procuring life purging sin driving away all evils Tertullian Adversus Judaeos in fine calleth the Eucharist Dominicae gratiae quasi viscerationem Christs Dole to his Church And least you may think it to be a poore Dole a Leane Thin Hungry gift the same Tertullian in lib. de Pudicitiâ expresseth it better thus Opimitate corporis Domini vescitur Hee eateth of the Plenty Abundance and Fatnesse of the Lords Body and our Soule is fully satisfied fatted crammed with God of which testimony hereafter The Cup is the new Testament in his blood 1 Cor. 10.25 This is my blood of the new Testament Matth. 26.28 and it is termed The Cup of the Lord vers 7 So it is also called 1 Cor. 10.21 Ye cannot drink the Cup of the Lord. The Cup of blessing which we blesse is the Communion of the Blood of Christ vers 16. The blessed Eucharist consisting of both kinds hath these glorious Tittles In the Scripture it is termed the Supper of the Lord 1 Cor. 11.20 And the Lords Supper in all these regards First because the Lord did Institute it Secondly did Take it Thirdly did Administer it to his Apostles Fourthly did appoint the Church to do the like in remembrance of the Lords death The Papiâ—â—s as before I observed dislike the frequent use of this phrase See Casaubone confuting Justinian the Jesuit in that point and against Maldonate whilst Casaubone from the Ancients calleth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The Great Supper the Most Divine and Arch-symbolical supper By a Metonymie of the subject a Table that is the food set on that Table 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Table of the Lord 1 Cor. 10.21 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Lords Testament or Legacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Communion as prohibiting Schisme and Division