Cross was a mark or token of malediction Gal. 3. 13. a quite contrary quality from that of the Altar which is to bless and to sanctifie 3. Also the holy Scripture speaking of the same Cross on which our transgressions were expiated never gives it the Title of Altar and the holy Ghost always abstains from this phrase although that in many places of the New Testament it seems to come much to the purpose 4. Men speak very inconsiderately to say that the Altar of Burnt-Offerings or that of Incense did represent the Cross on which Jesus Christ ought to be sacrificed There is more appearance that the Cross on which Jesus Christ was put was signified by the wood on which they placed their Victims And indeed Isaac carrying the wood on which he was to be sacrificed was a figure of Jesus Christ bearing the Cross on which he was to die CHAP. III. What is the Subject of the thoughts which Christians ought to have when they receive the holy Supper The Spiritual presence ill understood among the Vulgar TWo men shall produce an action of the same kind and the same quality in which nevertheless the one hath more noble thoughts then the other And for example both may give Almes with like sincerity of heart equall measure of charity and with the same resentment of affection and yet nevertheless in this act one carries more fair and rich conceptions So among many Christians who receive the Sacrament by faith and are carried to this action by motions tending to salvation there are som whose thoughts surpass those of others being more sublime and compleat and so of a higher dignity and which render them nearer to the bosome of Jesus Christ Now the most excellent thoughts which a Christian communicating at the Supper can have are those which Jesus Christ had and did suggest unto us in this action expressing them in words full of an incomparable richness To know then what cogitations are there required the words of Jesus Christ rightly understood will furnish us with the Subject of them But such a one presumes best to understand them who is not yet topick enough in every point appertaining to this matter For I let alone the superficial intelligence wherewith Ideots content themselves When they can say that as the bread nourishes our bodies so the flesh of Christ nourishes our souls they think they know enough Even so many do very ill understand this spiritual presence of Christ that is now so much disputed of Then when they present to themselves a man nailed to a Cross they imagin by this Idea Christ is made present to their thoughts and that in this act consists the participation of the body of Christ 'T is true we cannot call to mind his death and the manner of it but by conceiving such an object namely a humane body as it is painted in the history of the Passion his side being pierced and the bloud streaming from the wound c. But all this is but an historical representation much different from the spiritual communion of the body of Christ For when I represent unto my self Jesus Christ dying on the Cross in the most lively manner possible for me to do this figure or image which I have in my mind is not all this while Jesus Christ himself CHAP. III. A Brief of all that men teach touching the Point of the Lords Supper ALL that we consider in this Doctrin is reduced principally to these things The divers names by which this Sacrament is called It s Institution and the time of it The two Signes employed at this Table and the Censure of those who deny the Cup to the people The Analogie between the Bread and the Body of Christ between the Wine and the Blood The breaking of the one and the powring forth of the other with their signification The Thanksgiving or blessing by which Jesus Christ consecrated these Elements The difference between the corporal reception of the signe common both to the faithfull and the wicked and the Spirituall Communication of the Body of Christ peculiar to believers The examining of these words wherein we finde that there is a Figure the name of the thing signified being attributed to the Signe according to the ordinary custom of Sacramentall locutions That the substance of the Signes remain entire That the Body of Christ is not enclosed in the Bread of the Eucharist nor in any place of the earth That this bodily presence is not requisit to the true and reall Communication of it That this Communion is made by the efficacy of the Spirit on the behalf of Christ and by the Organ of Faith on our part That this Faith reacheth even unto Heaven and doth truely joyn us unto Christ That the end of this action is not there to make an Expiatory Sacrifice but a Commemoration of him That this Commemoration is not idle and vain but full of efficacy and affection That the Supper is unto us a Seal of a new Covenant an earnest of our Resurrection a tye of our Union with the Church and a Badge of our Profession To these are joyned the precepts which shew the preparatory Exercises the examination which every one ought to make of himself for to partake worthily of it and finally the acknowledgement or thanksgiving which we ought to make for it But as this matter is now almost all reduced to controversie the most part of those who undertake an exact description of all that may be said upon the Point of the Eucharist do make stop principally at those things which are in dispute And in this regard it is a hard matter to add to their writings having there neither question which they have not discussed error which they have not encountred difficulty which they have not cleared syllable which they have not culled argument which they have not pressed objection which they have not dissolved But we shall find that we may yet bring hither many other important considerations and without which this Doctrin cannot be compleat CHAP. V. Observations extracted out of the Jews Liturgie THey who have read the Books of the Rites of the ancient Jews have drawn from them some lights which shew the reason of many particulars expressed in the Institution of the Supper For the proceeding of Iesus Christ in the Eucharist answers to that which the Hebrews observe in the Passeover Now besides the Divine Laws which prescribe the form of this sacred Feast the Jews had Rules for those Circumstances which were not mentioned in the Law As for example Moses having pronounced nothing touching the Drink of this Solemn Feast their Ecclesiasticall Canons ordained that which was convenient for the Action They relate therefore among the ordinary Formalities of this Banquet That at the beginning the Master of the house took the Cup and praising God caused it to pass from hand to hand to the end that all who sat at the table might tast of it Thus
this Plant even unto the least leaf And likewise if their text speak of the Sower they will display all husbandry On a time a knowing man expounding unto us that which is said of the Longitude and Latitude depth and heigh of the love of God Ephes 3. v. 18. preached unto us all the Matheticks from a Point even unto the Squaring of a Circle so that one would have thought him an interpreter of Euclide and not of Saint Paul Also many handle the doctrine of the Supper who teach that among the Analogies by which the bread represents the body of Christ this is one That as the Bread was baked in the Oven by the heat of the fire so the Body of Jesus Christ passed through the furnace of torments and of death Also that as the Bread is made of Wheat which was ground and broken so the Body of Jesus Christ was broken to be made bread for us Likewise as for the other sign that as the Wine warms the entrailes so doth the Blood of Christ warm our hearts to Charity That as the Wine doth loose the tongue so the Blood of Christ makes us eloquent to confess his name That as the Wine makes ruddy the face of man so the Blood of Christ drives away the paleness of death Now saving the respect due to Predecessours and not to speak of that which would seem ridiculous in such Allegories I cannot abstain from saying that they stretch this analogy beyond the intention of the Son of God for first his death is not represented unto us by the baking of Bread but rather by the breaking of it nor by the bruising of the grain under the mill-stone Moreover in the Eucharist the Bread and Wine are not considered universally in all their proprieties and conditions For bread and wine have also qualities wherein they have no analogy with the body and blood of our Lord. And even all the qualities wherein the bread and wine have any similitude with the body and blood of Christ are not sacramentall but onely those that are comprised in the Institution That which is Sacracramentall in them is that they are Meat and Drink that we Eat the one and Drink the other in which respect they are signs of our Communion of the body and blood of Jesus Christ 1 Cor. 10. 16. The other conformities which are to be found between the body of Christ and the bread between the blood of Christ and the wine have no place in the Eucharist neither are there to be considered Wee ought not to multiply the â—nalogy between the signe inasmuch as a signe and the thing signified And finally when these analogies which we there meet with are not proposed as Sacramentall but onely as termes serving to illustrate or amplifie we see manifestly that in the most part of them in stead of fitting the Similitude to the Subject which they would represent they fit the Subject to the Similitude drawing it by force into the Comparison Now this is not to clear but to make more intricate And in such amplifications there is more words than substance The Third Sect. CHAP. I. Of the difference between the Evangelists reciting the Institution of the Supper THe Apostle St. Paul and the three Evangelists who have wrote this History doe report something diversly the words of Jesus Christ This difference may easily be perceived by hearing them speak together Now it is not necessary to repeat what the Expositors answer thereupon The whole being well considered there will alwayes be found an excellent harmony and one and the same sense But forasmuch as the Jews object unto us this diversity as a note of discord among the writers of the New Testament wee must bring to their remembrance the difference which is found between Moses and Moses writing the Decalogue in two severall places viz. in the 20. of Exodus and the 5. of Deuteronomy By Comparison of both we see not onely that there is diversity of termes but also in the one there are things which are not expressed in the other I omit the difference which wee see in the order of words conteined in the last Commandment We must observe that God doth never repeat the same thing but it is with some diversity at least for the most part This is seen by comparing the Histories which treat of the same subject as Deuteronomy with the three precedent books the books of Chronicles with those of Samuel and of the Kings the Evangelists one with the other Besides an infinite number of passages which are of like sort wherein is alwayes observed some difference It is an effect of the care which God hath of us explaning himself by divers wayes by a divers order by divers termes and by divers matters to the end that those things which are obscure unto us in one place should be made intelligible unto us by another And indeed the sence of Sacramentall words is better known by the diversity wherein they are propounded unto us than if they weâ—â— all rendered in the same syllables throughout all the Evangelists Finally it may be observed as wee goe that as the Decalogue wherein God speaks unto us is written twice at large in the Law so the Lords Prayer in which we speak to God is written twice at large in the Gospell and also with some diversity viz. in St. Matth. 6. and St. Luk. 11. CHAP. II. Of the first and last Sacrament of the Eating of the body of Christ FRom the fall of man even untill Moses there was no Sacramentall Eating during all that time the Church had no Sacrament which consisted in eating nor yet any Sacrifice whereof it was ordained to eat Before Moses they spake ordinarily of nothing but of Sacrifices laid whole on the Altar whereof none was eaten For this kind of Sacrifice was entirely burned The first Sacrifice which was ordained for meat was the Paschall Lamb. The eating of Sacrifices is come up since as that of Manna which yet was extraordinary Now this is worthy to be observed that in one and the same supper Jesus Christ celebrated the first and the last Sacrament of the Eating of his body viz. the Passeover and the Eucharist And from the same bread and wine which made part of the Supper of the Passeover he hath taken the signes whereof is composed the holy Supper So the first and the last Sacrament of the Eating of the body of Christ are met and touch one another at the same Table and the first resigning his place to the other hath furnished it with matter whereof it is formed CHAP. III. Of the first and last Passeover mentioned in Scripture ALthough the Passeover was celebrated yearly among the people of God nevertheless holy history recites particularly certain memorable Passovers amongst others solemnized at divers times The first when the Israelites prepared themselves to go out of Egypt Exod 12. The second in the Desert the year after their going out of Egypt Numb
called Jod St. Paul 1 Cor. 16. v. 22. denounceth Maranatha against whomsoever loved not the Lord Jesus This was the term of the greater Excommunication used among the Jews The Scribes and interpreters of the Law had the Key of the Chests and Archives where were kept the sacred books To this our Saviour makes allusion when he upbraids them with having withdrawn the Key of knowledge and not to have entred into it When a Doctor of the Law was created they spake to him after this manner as the Rabbines relate it Receive the Authority to pronounce bound whatsoever shall be bound and to pronounce unbound whatsoever shal be unbound This explains the words of Jesus Christ speaking to his Disciples whom he would constitute Doctors That which yee bind on earth shal be bound in Heaven and that which ye shall unbind on earth shal be unbound in Heaven In the 3. of the Revel Jesus Christ promiseth to them that shall overcome that they shall walk with him in white Rayments These White rayments say we are the token of purity and innocence But some learned men have observed that this term was taken from a formality used among the Jews when any one was installed into the Priesthood For the Councill having examined the genealogy and other qualities required in him who pretended to this charge if he were judged incapable they sent him back clad with a black robe to signify that he was rejected from the Altar But if he gained his cause they clad him with a white robe which was the habit of the Priests and he entred the Temple with his Colleagues Our Saviour seems to have a regard to this Custom when hee promises the white Garment to those whom he made Priests and assures them that they shall walk with him Revel 1. v. 6. IIII. Examples of the fourth Order In St. Mathew 5. v. 41. Jesus Christ saith if any one compell thee to goe a mile c. where the word translated Compell signifies to constrain one to run post The word came from the Persians who called those Angari whom wee call Posts or Posters In the Revel 2. v. 17. the white stone is taken from the manner whereby the Greeks and the antient Romans gave their voyces in Criminall Judgements The black stone was the mark of Condemnation The white of the contrary I omit the similitudes drawn from the Istthmian sports and the like viz. from the Race from the Wrastling from the Combates of the Amphitheatre and other Customs of the Greeks 1 Cor. 9. v. 24 c. chap. 15. v. 32. In Revel 16. It is foretold that the River Euphrates should be dryed up that the way of the Kings and people of the East might be prepared It is an allusion to the Stratagem whereby Cyrus made himself master of the City of Babylon having diverted the River Euphrates by many little channels In divers places of the Revelation our Saviour expressing the beginning and the end of all things takes the name of Alpha and Omega which are the first and the last Letters of the Greek Alphabet V. Examples of the fift Order The phrase which imports that we are Crucified to the world is borrowed from the kind of death that Jesus Christ suffered Many things which are said properly of his person are transferred to his Church as when it is said that we shall come to the age of perfect man and the measure of the perfect stature of Christ In the 13. of St. Luke the Parable saith these three years I come seeking fruit of this fig tree and find none Some Chronologers observe that Jesus Christ makes allusion to the time of his ministry For when he pronounced these words he had already preached three years to the people of the Jews exhorting them to bear fruit CHAP. III. The term of eating used to signify the Communion of the Body of Christ is in the second Order of Figurative Speeches ONe and the same figure may be taken from divers matters and so one and the same phrase may be found in divers rancks in divers regards but in the one more properly than in the other The point it self for the understanding whereof I have laid down these distinctions will explain that which I intend to say When the Communion of the Body of Christ is expressed by the word of Eating this phrase is not simply and immediatly drawn from this act naturall and common to all men yea to other living Creatures whereby we take our nourishment but of the action of the Israelites communicating of the Flesh of Sacrifices and other sacred meats An action which was truly naturall Materially if we may so speak sith that it consisted in eating but Formally and properly it was a sacred action and a point of the Ceremoniall Law So that this speech to eat the Body of Christ is amongst those which are drawn from the matters of the Old Testament The which appears also not to repeat all that which I have said before in that Jesus Christ hath retained the terms of it For among others speaking of his Blood he explains himself after the manner of the words of Moses in Exod. 24. v. 8. Behold the Blood of the Covenant I shall conclude this with a very notable consideration CHAP. IV. Why doe the two Sacraments of the Christian Church consist the one in Washing the other in Nourishment WE use to say that these are two similitudes or analogies wherein our Saviour hath shut these two Sacramennts because that the washing and the eating represent very properly the application of Jesus Christ who is a spirituall washing and nourishment unto us But this reason goes not far enough in the intention of our Saviour The Water is employed in Baptism not simply because of its naturall propriety of washing and cleansing but for a more particular Reason Likewise the nutritive vertue which is in the Bread and in the Wine is not the onely cause nor the immediate cause wherefore they were chosen for signs of the Body and Blood of Christ We must therefore know that in the old time under the Law amongst the Acts which represented the Application of future Redemption there were two common and ordinary viz. Washing and Eating There were indeed but these two acts whereby the people participated of Holy things For they were exhibited to them either in Washing as the Water of sprinkling and the Blood wherewith they besprinckled unclean persons or in Nourishment as the Paschall Lamb the Flesh of Eucharistick Sacrifices and other food sanctified by the Law Also the Apostle to the Hebrews Chap. 9. v. 10. teacheth us that all these legall matters consisted either in washings or in meats and drinks Now this shews clearly why Jesus Christ hath Instituted the Sacraments to the number of two and why in these two manners above-said the one of Washing the other of Nourishment It is to the end that the same acts which had in times past represented the
other in some respect XXII The first that felt death is also the first that sacrifised with Blood representing the bloody Oblation of Jesus Christ XXIII The Blood which was shed for one man alone or for some small number of persons never entred into the Holy Place but only that which was shed for many i. e for the multitude or for the Church in generall The Blood of Jesus Christ hath pierced the Holy Places as having been shed for many XXIV That which moved our Saviour to ordain Bread rather than Flesh to represent his Body is not because that Flesh hath served heretofore in Sacrifices For Bread and Wine were also employed in Legall Oblations But it is that he would shew that after him no creature should any more dye for the sin of man Therefore it is that he hath ordained Sacraments which require not the slaughter of any Creature as being compounded of signs which are of themselves without life and of other substance than of flesh and blood XXV All the properties of Bread and Wine enter not into the Analogy or Sacramentall relation which these Elements have with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ Many similitudes which the Learned introduce in this matter are impertinent and abusive as when they represent the violent death of Jesus Christ by the Baking of Bread in the Oven c. XXVI God never repeats the same thing but it is with some diversity It is to the end that things which are obscure in one place may be made unto us intelligible by another This is the scope of the difference which is found among the Evangelists reciting the Institution of the Supper XXVII Before the Passeover there was no Sacramentall Eating Jesus Christ celebrated the first and the last Sacrament of the Eating of his Body viz. the Passeover and the Eucharist on one and the same table XXVIII The Passeover that Jesus Christ celebrated is the seaventh and last of those which are recited in the Scripture as being the perfection and conclusion of all those aforegoing In this last Passeover the true Lamb is there found in person Moreover as the Passeover came from Egypt there where it was first celebrated so Jesus Christ also was called out of Egypt XXIX The Sacraments of the Christian Church have already dured longer time than the Mosaicall Ceremonies have subsisted XXX The Institution of the Passeover is recited very largely this of the Eucharist is comprised in very few words It is because That contained many Ceremonies This here but a very few But finally the Institution of the Passeover speaks much more of the sign than of the thing signified This is the style of the Law to be prolix in the narration of Ceremonies and to speak very briefly of spirituall graces represented under such figures XXXI The Sacraments of the Christian Church were formed of matters and actions simple naturall and Common to the end that they might not be subject unto Change but remain unvariable to the end of the world XXXII The difference of times of places and persons whereto God had bound the most notable Ceremonies of the Law tended to facilitate their abrogation But on the Contrary our Saviour hatâ— not prefixed any time for the Celebration of the Supper to the end that it might be universally practised in all times and in all places XXXIII That in the Supper Jesus Christ is represented as he was on the Crosse and not as he is in Heaven as dead and not as glorified this is because the Sacraments tend rather to assure us of the glory that Jesus Christ acquired unto us than to describe that which he possesseth himself Now it is by his death that he hath gotten us this glory From thence it comes that having Instituted two Sacraments which represent him dead he hath not ordained any one which might represent him glorified XXXIV That Our Saviour hath not Instituted more illustrious Signes and the reason why they are not miraculous is among other reasons forasmuch as the end of Miracles is to shew the greatness and power of God But on the contrary the end of our Sacraments chiefly of the Eucharist is to shew the infirmity the death and humiliation of Christ XXXV According to the Maxims of the Roman Church a man may without thinking of it and not knowing any thing of it eat the Body of Christ Jesus XXXVI There is none of us who knows all the particular Reasons of all the Circumstances of the Passion XXXVII That the History of the Passion of Jesus Christ doth not move us so much as that of many others whose afflictions are recited in Scripture is forasmuch as the sufferings of Jesus Christ are not the Object of any naturall Commotion such as we may have for other men but of another kind of resentment which being Spirituall is not so easie to be raised XXXVIII From thence it also comes that the superstitious are sometimes more moved at the rehearsall of the Passion of Jesus Christ than the true Christians XXXIX Here we consider why it hath been easier for many to resolve to suffer death for the love of Christ than to shed so much as one tear for the love of him XL. Although the Spirituall Communion of the Body of Christ be a Super naturall Act nevertheless it is not done by a miraculous transportation and ravishment of Spirit as was that of the Prophets XLI A Roman Catholick hath need of much more time to learn his Religion than an Orthodox to understand his And particularly concerning the Eucharist An Orthodox man will sooner learn all that he ought to know concerning it than a Roman Catholick the tenth part of that which his Religion teacheth him concerning this point XLII The style of the New Testament is composed of six kinds of phrases and termes of different originall some proper others figurative XLIII The Figurative Speeches which are in the New Testament are drawn from five divers sorts of matter XLIV The Figure which is in this word Eating for to denote the Communion of the Body of Christ is not simply derived from the naturall Act of Eating in generall but from the Action of the Faithfull of the Old Testament Communicating of the Flesh of Sacrifices and other Sacred meats XLV In the Old Testament there were but two other Holy For they were exhibited either by Washing or by Nourishment Baptism and the Eucharist doe answer to these two kinds of Actions This iâ— the Reason wherefore we have these two Sacraments and in these two manners above-sayd FINâ—S
Saint Luke relates that Iesus Christ began his last supper That after that he took bread in his hands and blessing the Divine Majestie brake it and then gave it to every one that was present at the banquet telling them that it was the bread which their fathers had eaten in Egypt That for the Close of the Repast he took again the Cup and presenting the Wine said that it was the fruit of the Vine and the blood of the Grape Terms borrowed of the old Testament Gen. 49. 11. and Deut. 32. 14. and to which our Saviour made allusion when giving the Wine he said that it was Blood Whereupon is to be observed in what the last Cup is different from the first Also why Christ blessed not the Wine and Bread both together but the bread by it self a-part and so the Wine That in this Feast there was a Dish composed of Raysins and other Fruits bruised and beaten together season'd with vinegar and made clammie like unto clay in remembrance of the Bricks of Egypt wherein they dipp'd their bread It may be it was the platter wherein Judas his sop was dip'd That the washing of Feet frequent among those of the East was not practis'd at the end of all Feasts but only in that of the Passeover From thence it comes that after Supper Iesus Christ washed the feet of his Disciples That their Custom was to close this Action with the singing of Psalmes the 113 and the 114. which is without doubt that Hymn which Iesus Christ and his Disciples sang before they went forth That speaking of the Passeover they oftentimes give it a name which signifies Annunciation which is the Term which St Paul transfers to the holy Supper when he saith Ye shall Shew the Lords death Without these observations drawn from the Ecclesiastical discipline of the Jews it is impossible to attain to a perfect understanding of the actions of Iesus Christ in the Institution of the Eucharist But the sence of his words touching his Body and his Blood ought to be drawn from a higher Fountain CHAP. VI. Necessary suppositions for the understanding of the words of Jesus Christ in the Supper THat which Iesus Christ said touching the Communion of his Body and of his Blood all that I say depends on certain Maximes which our Lord hath laid for a Basis and Foundation of this Communion Now there are very few people which observe these suppositions without which neverthelesse it is impossible to understand fully the Terms of the Son of God and to know the importance of them The words of the Institution advertise us that this Sacrament is a New Covenant in as much as it is the Seal of it and by consequence that it contains or presupposes articles quite new quite different from those which are contained in the old For we must know that the old Testament speaking of the Blood of the Covenant of the effusion of it for the remission of sins and of the flesh of the expiatory Sacrifice Symboles of the Body and of the Blood of Christ did contain certain Ordinances which prohibited that which Iesus Christ commands us in the Eucharist Let us retain this carefully That which the Son of God commands us to do in the Supper is founded upon Maximes opposit to those of the old Testament And in this opposition consists the Foundation and the Life of the words of Iesus Christ I conclude then that it is impossible without the conferring of these clauses carried through the two Testaments to construe exactly the mysterious words of the Institution Further Let not men think that here I mean to bring in Allegories For the relations and differences between the old and new Testament are not Allegoricall And if any one will call them by that name let him know that without such Allegories he shall never understand perfectly what Iesus Christ had a minde to say For these words the Testament the Blood of the Testament the Eating of the Flesh given for us the effusion of Blood for the remission of sins are terms of the Mosaicall Law It is therefore necessary to learn that which the Law ordained touching the communication of the Flesh and Blood destined to the expiation of sinners and compare this Ordinance with that of Iesus Christ in the Supper This will furnish me with an answer to those who would impose upon me to have here introduced matters estranged from the subject of the Eucharist under colour of being far removed from their own thoughts The considerations which I have to produce are immediately fastened to the words of the holy Supper and shew to what properly Iesus Christ had regard unto in pronouncing them as we shall see hereafter On the contrary many treat of the Eucharist who imbroyle it with an infinite number of other points whilst they omit a good part of the true substance of the Sacramentall words whereof they never expresse the entire sence None here refuseth to hear spoken of demon strative pronounes of a verb substantive of a subject and of an attribute of synecdoches of Metanomyes and other scholastick Terms which serve only for the grammaticall understanding Why then shall the proper names of things which Iesus Christ aimed at in the Eucharist be reputed strangers in this matter The new Testament and the old the blood shed for our sin and the blood of legall expiations the eating of the flesh of Christ and the eating of offerings are terms correlative in the words of the Eucharist and do answer one another with a loud voice The understanding of the one depends on the knowledge of the other CHAP. VII A preparatory question to the following Considerations THere is none but knowes that our Saviour explained himself more formally when he spoke of his blood in presenting the Cup and when he spoke of his body in giving the bread For these last words expound the former and teach us in what quality his body is produced unto us and given in the Eucharist namely in as much as it is the sacrifice of the new Testament offered for the remission of our sins Now these words expresse the subject and the cause of our Communion with him For it is not enough to know that we have the body of Christ to eat and his blood to drink we ought to know the reason and the vertue of it Otherwise we shall never understand the point of the Eucharist This reason is manifest Our Saviour in the 26 chapter of St Matthew speaks thus touching the Cup Drink ye all of it For this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins But there are but few who know the meaning of Iesus Christ and wherein consists the knot and connexion of his purpose That we ought to drink his blood Because it is the blood of the new Testament shed for the remission of our sins And likewise why from the oblation of his body do we conclude
yet of a higher dignity and much more mysterious In this action Jesus Christ was the entire body of the Figure and was there represented more to the life And the flesh of this sacrifice is honoured with a Title which is not given to the other For 't is said that it was most holy An Epithite which according to the Stile of the Law signifies not only a superlative degree in this quality but expresseth abundance of efficacie which it had by divine institution to sanctifie those who eat of it Levit. 6. 27. But that which is carefully to be observed none of those for whose sin it was offered had permission to eat of it so that this meat was ordained to sanctifie sinners and notwithstanding it was forbidden them For either a sacrifice was made for the sins of any one who was not of the order of the Priests And in this case one part of the sacrifice was burnt upon the Altar and the other the Priests did eat For the Law gave them a portion of the offering which they presented for other men Lev. 4. v. 22. and Lev. 6. v. 26. 29. Lev. 7. v. 1. c. But the sinner for whom the sacrifice was made did not taste of it at all Or it was done to expiate the sins of the Priest himself who offered for his own transgressions And then neither he nor any else might eat of the Sacrifice but it was to be wholy consumed with the fire Lev. 4. v. 8 c. Or it was sacrificed for the whole Body of the Church either annually for the universal expiation of sins which was done in the name of the whole Congregation or ordinarily at some notable meetting which required a general sacrifice for the sins of all the people And in such a case somtimes the Priests did eat the sacrifice which was offred in common for the sins of the Nation Lev. 10. v. 17. but none of the Israelites for whom this sacrifice was made had permission to eat thereof Most times ordinarily such offerings passed wholy through the fire to be there consumed so that no body eat of it Lev. 4. v. 13. and Lev. 16. For the better understanding of all these diversities we must remember that there were two sorts of Sacrifices for sin The One whose blood was carried within the Tabernacle The Other whose blood was not admitted the holy place As for the first it was a general Rule that none should eat of it For there was a Law which did expresly forbid the eating of that sacrifice whose blood was carried into the Tabernacle for the expiation of sins Lev. 6. v. 30. This first kinde of sacrifice is mentioned by the Apostle to the Hebrews chap. 13. v. 10. As for the Other whose blood came not into the holy place they burned one part of it and the rest was for the eating of the Priests For this cause the sinners for whom the expiatory sacrifice was offered had never the power to eat any portion thereof Whereupon we are to observe one very considerable distinction in the Old Testament There were other signes representing the Body of Christ of which the eating was permitted to the people of the Jewes They eat Manna which was in Figure the Body of Christ and drank of the Rock which was Christ They eat the Passover which was Christ They eat the Eucharistick sacrifices wherein Jesus Christ was figured But as for the Expiatory sacrifice which also represents Christ it was unlawful for them to eat of it Now we must know that all these Sacrifices and Sacraments did not represent Jesus Christ in the same respect but every one of them had its different and particular signification one representing him in one quality and another in another according to the diversity of his Offices and Benefits As one and the same King may have divers seals all bearing his image but under divers habits and in different postures The ancient people then had power to communicate of all these Sacraments and Sacrifices in some respect as they should represent Christ except onely in that which represented him in as much as an Expiatory Sacrifice which is the quality wherein he is given to us in the Eucharist It is also to be noted that among the Oblations which were represented for sins there was one of Bread and Wine which are the same Elements which we have in the Eucharist Num. 15. v. 24. This Bread and this Wine were also Symboles of the Body and Blood of Christ Now as for the Bread the Law divided it between the Priest and the Altar reserving nothing for the sinners for whom by name it was offered The Wine also was forbid them for it was all poured forth upon the Offering and served for nothing but to sprinckle upon it But at this day the Bread and Wine Symboles of the Body and Blood of Christ are exhibited to them for whom Jesus Christ offered himself in an Expiatory Sacrifice From all these Statutes which prescribe the formes and solemnities of Expiations it appears that the Law permits not men to eat that which is offered for the remission of their sins It is an universal Rule drawn from Mosaical Right Here then is very considerable the Opposition which is seen between the maxime of the Law and that of Jesus Christ The Law saith Eat not that which is offered for the remission of your sins Jesus Christ saith Eat that which is offered for the remission of your sins For our Saviour inviting sinners to the eating of his Body establishes a Principle unheard of before and which is among the Paradoxes That man should eat the Sacrifice offered for his sins We shall see anon the importance of it In the mean while I shall pass to another point which we have already a little obsetved in this here CHAP. III. The third Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ THE Eating of the Expiatory Sacrifice is mentioned as an act of great dignity But it was the Priests Prerogative For the Law gave the Sacrifice to be eaten not to sinners for whom it was offered but to the Priests which had offered it for the sins of other men It was the Priest not the sinner who had charge to eat of it Lev. 6. v. 26. and chap. 7. v. 7. The Priest who offereth the sin Offering shall eat it It belongs to the Priest who shall make propitiation by it And it was not lawful for any of the people although the Sacrifice were offered for them to touch it or come neer it or to be found in the place where it was eaten For the Lawgiver permitted not that it should be eaten any where but in the Tabernacle whether the people entred not The Prophet Ezekiel chap. 46. v. 20. conformable to this Law speaking of the flesh offered for sins forbids the carrying it forth into the utter Court for fear of sanctifying the People Now the priviledge of eating the Offering for sin was given to
every one of them So that if one of my sins hath been Expiated in this Blood all my other sins have there their Expiation also for it is generall and entire So then the termes of the Institution if wee know how to weigh them cause us to know that Jesus Christ hath sounded all the profundities of the Old Testament and drawes from thence those points which shew the excellency and advantages of the New by comparing them together CHAP. XVI The eighth Consideration upon the words of the holy Supper I Intend not to reiterate that which hath been so much written how the Bread is the Body of Christ but onely to observe something upon a question which is common enough viz. Why our Lord did not ordain Flesh rather than Bread for to represent his Body For it seems that this Symbole should be more analogick and significative According to the saying of many it is forasmuch as Flesh hath served in old time in the Sacrifices and in the Passeover and that it behoves that the Sacraments of the Christian Church should be of other Elements than those that have served under the Law But this answer is ill grounded for 1. The Bread and Wine were also used in Sacrifices There was by name an Oblation of Bread and Wine Numb 15. not to speak of the Shew-bread and of the Offerings of Cakes 2. The Element of Water served for Legall purifications Under the Law there was nothing so ordinary as the washing with Water to signifie the clensing of the Soul Yet neverthelesse God would that Baptism should be with Water 3. The contrary is rather true and this is that also which some ancient Fathers say of it That in this action Jesus Christ useth Bread and Wine because that these Elements had already been used under the Law to represent his Body and his Blood And this to the end we should know that it is the same Christ represented by the same signes But why then hath not the Flesh of living Creatures as well place in the Sacrament of the Eucharist sith it hath represented Christ in that of the Passeover and in so many kinds of Sacrifices We say indeed that Christ hath rather chosen Bread because it is the most common and the most nourishing food and so most proper to represent his Body But this excludes not other reasons which we may give thereof Moreover the Eucharist represents not the Body of Jesus Christ simply as nourishment but also as dead Now some may say which neverthelesse is not without contradiction that the Death of Christ was in Old time more ocularly represented by the killing of a Lamb than at this day by the breaking of Bread So it is this is the point I am to handle that Jesus Christ instituting signs of his Dead Body and of his Blood shed did choose things without life and Elements wherein there was no Blood Whereby he would shew that after him no creature should any more lose his life for the sins of man and that no other Blood should be shed in Expiation For the Sacraments of the Old Testament were Bloody to denote the Blood which was to be shed by the death of Christ But this effusion being made the Sacraments which represent it as done and accomplished are without effusion of Blood to shew that there shall be no more Blood shed for sins Hence it is wee have no more a Sacrament which requires the killing of any creature but Signes wherein death doth not intervene as being of themselves without life and of another substance than of Flesh and Blood CHAP. XVII The ninth Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ MEn principally the common people do naturally love Similitudes because they are drawn from things perceptible to the senses or otherwise common and easie to be conceived But similitudes represent not the essence of a subject and doe not say what a thing is but what it resembles So our Lord would not tell us simply that his Body had resemblance unto Bread nor onely that the Bread is a Seal unto us of the Communion of his Body but also hath shewed us the causes and qualities of this Communion These words To eat the Body of Jesus Christ signifie not onely to take it for the Sustenance of our Souls as we take food for the nourishment of our Bodyes This Similitude if we specifie no more teacheth us but very generally the nature of this Communion and doth not set forth the entire sense of the words of Jesus Christ For in the Eucharist our Lord doth not propound himself as Flesh in generall but as Flesh sacrifised for our sins which is a point of great consequence in this matter I have already said that the word Eating is attributed to the Cōmunion of the body of Christ which is as much as to say that this Communion is in substance that which was in Figure the eating of Sacrifices of the Manna of the Passeover c. And namely that in this Communion we have that which the Law forbad us to wit the eating of the Flesh offred for our sins They who content themselves with the generall similitudes between the Food of the Body and the nourishment of the Soul attain not unto the specifick difference of the subject of the Eucharist But I have yet somewhat to say of an abuse which is committed in the deduction of this Similitude For as many omit that which is contained in the words of the holy Supper so there are some I speak even of Orthodox Divines who adde thereto something of their own CHAP. XVIII The tenth Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ in the Supper WEe know that wee ought not to carry a Similitude beyond its end For when two divers things are compared to one another it is never in all and through all but onely in some regard When for example our Lord in St. Matth. 13. v. 46. compares the kingdome of Heaven to a Pearl of great price his intention is but to express the greatness of the value and richness of the Gospell Now he that would under pretence of this word Pearl dispute philosophically of all the kinds and proprieties of Pearls search of what matter they are made and how they are formed and subtilly fit all this to the kingdome of Heaven would surpasse the bounds wherein Jesus Christ hath confined the similitude For he doth not in all qualities compare the kingdome of Heaven to a Pearl but onely in the price or esteem which men have of it Notwithstanding there are few found among those who expound the Scriptures who keep themselves within these limits There are even of those who regard no measure when they handle a comparison If our Saviour say that he is a Vine they will name all sorts of Vines and their differences and tell you what territory is proper to them when they are to bee planted how they are to be pruned and kept Also what are the parts of
the Priests for to bear the iniquity of the congregation to make an atonement for them before the Lord. Lev. 10. v. 17. As then the Priests alone had the power of expiating sins so also to them alone did belong the eating of the Offering Hence follows First That the eating of it was a Priestly act as well as the immolation Secondly That this eating made a part of the Expiation it self or at least was required to the accomplishment of it The Sinner and the Priest who reconciles the Sinner are persons much different and their actions of a very diverse nature In the Old Testament then the Priest eats that which was offered for the sin of another But Jesus Christ hath changed this Ordinance For by an Order quite new and unheard of before he enjoyns even Sinners themselves to eat the flesh offered for their sins So this Right which was onely the Priests is now transported to Sinners themselves And whereas the Priest eat it for to accomplish the expiation of sins now we eat it because the expiation is already made and accomplished This difference is very notable CHAP. IV. That the precedent considerations cannot be accused of Nullity whithout doing injury to the wisdom of the Son of God NOW if any man will affirm that Jesus Christ thought not of all that is above said or doubt whether these antitheses be the end of his words instituting this Sacrament let him again consider if they be not there formerly declared If the blood of the New Covenant which he commands us to drink be not manifestly opposite to that of the Old whereof none eat If the reason wherefore we are enjoyned to drink the one be not the same for which it was forbidden to tast the other If Jesus Christ commanding Sinners to eat the body offered for their transgressions thought not of the Law which forbids them to eat the flesh sacrificed for their sins If he were ignorant that it was an action of the Priests wherein Sinners had no part If he knew not that the Communion of bread and and wine representing his Body and Blood in as much as they were to be offered for Sinners was absolutely forbidden them And finally If he who knew this Law perfectly and represented his Body and Blood by the same Elements which the Law imployed to this effect which is set down in the proper termes of it to express actions unknown unto it hath not seen the consequence thereof nor perceived that it introduced quite new principles apparently contrary to those of the Old Testament nor would observe a difference so visible when he spoke even to men that were Jews and to all future ages who might easily take notice of this Noveltie Certainly forasmuch as he layeth down maximes altogether new which may seem strange unto them he advertiseth them that he makes a New Covenant which abolisheth the first which contains new Clauses which giveth new Rights which takes away the conditions held by the precedent and imposeth others altogether distinct from them And as the changing of the Sacrificing hath shewed that there should be a change of the Law so the draught of the Covenant being changed we ought not to wonder that we see new articles and new orders which answer not to the form and tenor of the first Covenant It is no more to be doubted that such is the sense and the end of the words of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and those who see it not therein do but half understand it Now the considerations here above produced may it furnish us for what follows CHAP. V. The Freface to the fourth Consideration I Treat not here of Controversie nor touch the famous Dispute of the manner of eating the Flesh of Christ Every one can say that the Holy Ghost often speaks by a Figure and hides a Spiritual sense under the name of corporal things whereupon nevertheless is to be observed as we go that many put Figures into those words whose propriety may subsist even in a most excellent sense The 146. Psalm teacheth that God openeth the eyes of the blinde and maketh strait those that are crooked Some say that he onely speakes of the illumination of the Spirit and of the health of the Soul This is the common place and the wide gate through which they shift who finde themselves brought to a strait in any difficult passage For not being able to get out otherwise they cast themselves on a very easie way saying That all this ought to be understood spiritually All this while they eclipse the true light of divers passages which have no need to be expounded by a figure Such a one is that which I have produced which toucheth two excellent miracles which were reserved to the Son of God in token of his Divinity For before him never did any give sight to the blinde nor make strait the bodies which were crooked Wonders which his Omnipotency hath really accomplished John 9. Luke 13. v. 11 12. Moreover we examine not whence it comes that Jesus Christ speaks so often by similitudes whether because those of the East were accustomed of old to propound their Doctrins under such representations as we may see in many places of the Old Testament Or because the Divine Oracles observing in what style the Messias would express himself to men had foretold that he would open his mouth in Parables Or because he would render himself obscure to unbeleevers envelopping his mysteries and covering them wlth names estranged from the subject Or because heavenly things not having name in the language of the children of men to whom they are naturally unknown it was needful for to make them understood unto them to speak to them in their own terms Or because that supernatural objects do more easily insinuate into the minde and there form more lively impressions being produced under the image of those which are more perceptible to the senses then being nakedly purposed in titles more thin and subtil As for this phrase which is now in agitation there is none but can say after St. Augustin touching the eating of the Body of Christ That those words which seem to command a wickedness ought to be taken in a figure But this is not our question here CHAP. VI. The fourth Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ in the Supper SOME will demand why Jesus Christ would speak in such a figure employing a speech which seems to denote a wickedness Why is an act so holy so noble expressed by the name of an act the most barbarous and the most unnatural that can be For what is there more holy then the action of the Soul which unites it self to Jesus Christ And what is there more abominable then to eat the flesh of a man and even to drink his very blood Moreover how can a cruelty represent so amiable a Communion And further from whence comes it that our Saviour recommended this Communion would give us a
Application of Jesus Christ in these two divers regards should still represent it This Application was truly figured also by the Circumcision whereto Baptism succeeded But we have seen that our Sacraments ought not to have any more any thing bloody Moreover as I said Our Saviour seems to have regard to this point that all holy things those which the Law made communicable to every one of the people were applied personally unto him in the one or in the other of these two actions onely viz. either in their Washings or in their Sacred Banquets To these two sorts of actions wherein consists all the participation of holy things answer Baptism and the Eucharist If we contemplate there but a resemblance between the Water the Bread and the Wine of the one part and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ of the other this consideration is too wandring and generall and doth not observe distinctly enough the intention of our Saviour Wee know that the Communion of Jesus Christ is represented in Scripture under the Similitude of divers â—onjunctions as of the Head with the Members of the Vine with the Branches of the Husband with the Wife of the foundation with the edifice of the Clothing with the Body of Washing and of Nourishment But it is a question to know why among so many similitudes our Saviour would choose these two viz. that of Washing and that of Nourishment rather than any other whereof to make the Sacraments of the New Testament I believe therefore we must seek the reason in the correspondence which they have with these two actions of the Old Testament wherein only lyes the personall application of holy things which the Law distributed to the people To Conclude I shall adde touching the Water of Baptism that which I said touching the Bread and the Wine of the Eucharist Many Divines dispute Philosophically of the proprieties of Water by reason whereof our Saviour would it should serve for Baptism For say they as Water or watery matter is the principall of all naturall production so the Holy Ghost represented by Water is the principall of our regeneration Also as Water doth fructifie the Earth and make it fit to bear fruit so the Holy Spirit bedewing our Souls makes us capable to bring forth the fruit of good works Moreover as Water doth quench the thirst so the Holy Ghost doth quench the thirst of earthly things To which is referd that which our Saviour saith in St. John 7. If any one Thirst Let him come unto mee and drink But certainly they who thrust 〈◊〉 Similitudes into Baptism are extravagant in divers kinds Water is used in Baptism inasmuch as it washeth and cleanseth not as it refresheth nor as it allayes the thirst being drank Otherwise wee ought to consider it as drink and confound the Baptism and the Eucharist Water is not considered in Baptism but as Washing The other proprieties which it may have are our of the Sacramentall analogy If this Element should have yet more qualities proper to represent the Blood of Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit they are not of the Sacrament and it is not for us to place them there FINIS AN Epitome of this Treatise comprised in these Aphorismes following I. MAny are learned in the Controversie of the Eucharist who nevertheless have not Knowledge enough of the grounds and mysteries of this Sacrament II. Many Treatises of Devotion which have the vogue among the people namely touching the holy Supper serve rather to foment ignorance than to augment instruction III. They are ridiculous who endeavouring to specifie all the particular Causes of the Circumstances of the Passion give us Allegories for Reasons and Metaphors for Mysteries IV. This ordinary Phrase the Altar of the Crosse is improper and subject to evill Consequences V. The Historicall representation whereby we call to mind a Man nayled to the Crosse is not this Act whereby Jesus Christ is made present to ours Souls VI. The Reason why Jesus Christ invites us to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood is understood of very few viz. why wee ought to drink his Blood forasmuch as it is the Blood of the New Testament why from the Oblation of his Body we conclude the eating of it VII The Reason consists of Maxims opposite to those of the Old Testament For the Law contained certain Ordinances which prohibited that which Jesus Christ commands us in the Eucharist VIII Jesus Christ invites us to drink his Blood for the same reason which forbids us to eat blood For the Law saith Ye shall eat no blood because it is shed for the remission of sins Jesus Christ saith Drink ye this Blood because it is shed for the remission of sins IX It is a Maxim of the Old Testament that none can eat of that which hath bin offered for him for remission of sins But Jesus Christ commands us to eat his Body given for our sin X. In the Old Testament the Priests were to eat the Sacrifice which they offered for the sins of other men But Jesus Christ hath transferr'd this Rite to sinners themselves XI The Communion to which Jesus Christ invites us is marked with the names of two acts whereof one is repugnant to the Ceremoniall Law viz. to eat that which hath bin sacrifised for our sins the other contrary to the Law of Nature viz. to eat the flesh of man XII God had ordained that we should not eat of any Blood untill the Blood of Christ should be shed XIII The Law forbidding Sinners to eat the Sacrifice of their Expiation shewed that the true Sacrifice was not yet exhibited nor their Expiation accomplished XIV In the Old Testament the Eating of the Expiatory Sacrifice was a Sacerdotall Act required for Expiation But at this day this Eating is an effect of Expiation already made XV. In the Scripture the more a phrase is remote from the ordinary Rules of the Language of men the more mysterious it is XVI The Communion of the Body of Christ is represented by the act of Eating not simply by similitude but to retain the Term of this Testamentary Clause which Jesus Christ hath revoked in this Sacrament which forbad man to eat the Sacrifice of his Expiation And this speech means That the Communion of the Body of Christ is in effect that which the eating of Sacrifices was in Figure XVII In the Life Naturall man and his meat are different Kinds but in the Life Spirituall man and his nourishment ought to be of the same kind XVIII The Old Testament had no force in comparison of the New because the Testator was not yet dead XIX Whereas death permits not any man to be Executor of his own Will Jesus Christ is risen again to execute his XX. He who dyed first of all men dyed of a bloody death The death of Jesus Christ was signed with blood XXI The first Blood which was shed on Earth and the Blood of Jesus Christ are opposite one to the