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
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
that it should be Holy and without blemish Ephes 5.26 27. Aqua quae benedicitur purgat illuminat hominem The water which is blessed doth purge and illuminate man saith Gregory Nyssen in lib. de Baptismo Caro abluitur ut anima emaculetur the body is washed that the soule may be made cleane saith Tertullian de resurrectione carnis From whence in all likelihood Augustine tract 80. in Johannem propounded that assevering interrogation unde tanta vis aquae ut corpus tangat cor abluat from whence is that powerfull vertue of water that the body being touched the soule is washed The blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist is more powerfull than over Paschal was Tertul. de resurrectione carnis thus Caro corpore Christi sanguine veseitur ut anima de Deo saginetur our flesh feedeth on the body and blood of Christ that our soules may be filled and fatted with God Bernard in primo Sermone de coena Domini pag. 145. Who can quell so fierce raging wilde motions of concupiscence who can beare the itchings bitings or akings of this wound Beleeve Gods grace is sufficient for men And that ye may be secure saith Saint Bernard you have the investiture that is a new acquist and possession of the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ For that Sacrament worketh two things in us Et sensum minuit in minimis ingravioribus peccatis tollit omnino consensum it infeebleth and diminisheth sin in the smallest matters but in more grievous sins it wholly taketh away our consent If any of you find not so sharp motions to anger envie luxury or the like let him thank the body and blood of our Lord because the vertue of that Sacrament worketh effectually in him and let him rejoyce that the fowlest ulcer beginneth to heale I conclude this passage with the memorable words of our Saviour at the institution of the holy Eucharist Mat. 26.28 This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins Thus doe the Sacraments of Grace remit quell and mortifie sin whereas the divine Apostle speaking of the Sacraments of the old Law is expresse Heb. 10.4 It is not possible that the blood of Goats and Bulls should take away sins PAR. 3. A Third Reason for its Institution was to prefigure Christs death and going out of the world John 13.1 Jesus knew his houre was come that he should depart out of the world unto the Father 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut transeat that he might Passe out of the world having apparent reference both to the old and new Passeover on the Crosse All Sacraments of the old Law were figures of the Eucharist And they did also finally designe and typifie Christs death Therefore the blessed Eucharist must needs adumbrate Christs death also Indeed the Egyptian Passeover by the sprinkling of whose blood the Israelites were freed from the exterminating Angel doth most lively typifie Christ slaine and his blood delivering us But the Paschal Lamb which afterward was yeerely slaine did more resemble the Sacrament of Christs body and blood and yet both the first and the succeding yeerely Passeover may all of them and each of them in a true and fitting sence be said to prefigure not only the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ but the very Crucifixion of our blessed Saviour Jesus Christ PAR. 4. A Fourth Cause of Christ's superinducing of the blessed Eucharist was to be a remembrance to us of Christs death till he commeth againe 1 Cor. 11.24 Doe this in remembrance of me so verse 25. As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye doo shew the Lords death till he come ver 26. The Paschall was a memoriall of their deliverance from Egypt and of their passing the Red-sea without danger whilst the Sea stood as two Christall walls on the right hand and the left and they passed through dry-footed Exod. 14.22 Againe when in after times their children were to ask What mean you by this service Ye shall say It is the Sacrifice of the Lords Passeover who passed over the houses of the children of Israel in Egypt when he smote the Egyptians and delivere dour houses Exod. 12.26 c. But the Eucharist is a memoriall of our deliverance from Sin Hell and the power of Satan Therefore so farre as spirituall deliverances are above temporall as the soules are above the bodies heaven above earth so farre doth our holy Eucharist antecede their Paschal and bringeth with it more certaine fruit and fuller Grace infused not only Sealing and Signifying Grace but Conferring and Exhibiting it by it selfe in the true use I urge not this effect so farre as to exclude Baptisme from working remission of sinnes nor as if the sacred Sucharist did remit the Same Individuall sinnes which were Before remitted by Baptisme or as if it did remit sins that never were Repented of God doth not so much But the Sacrament of the body and blood of our Lord forgiveth such sins as have beene committed betweene the receiving of Baptisme and it and such sins as have overborne us since our hearty Contrition and Repentance yea where sins are perfectly forgiven before the holy Communion yet doth the Holy Communion Enseale and Ratifie the former remission if I may so speake and the Eucharist in the right use maketh an Attrite man a Contrite One A Contrite man to be Justified A Justified man to be Holy An Holy man to be More holy and the Holiest One to be more lively spiritfull and prompt in religious services than I think he would have beene if the Sacrament had beene omitted Thus I doubt not but if the Thrice-blessed Virgin Mary had received the consecrated Eucharist as in likelihood she did though she were full of Grace according to the Angels salutation when she received it yet it would not have beene uneffectuall to her Good for she was not so full of Grace but that shee was still capable of more and greater additaments of Grace Many more Reasons there are why Christ Jesus did superinstitute the blessed Eucharist destroying and abolishing thereby the old Passeover I will instance only in some of them and that very briefly PAR. 5. A Fifth Reason why Christ did institute this Sacrament was to unite us to Himselfe 1 Corinth 10.16 The cup of blessing which wee blesse is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ The bread which we breake is it not the Communion of the body of Christ The cup is so necessary that the Apostle placeth it before the bread 6. To breed brotherly love and to unite us to Christ and one to another For we being many are One Bread and One Body For we are all partakers of that One Bread 1 Cor. 10.17 Hence floweth that great Article of our Creed The communion of Saints Hence is that Sacred Eucharist called Communio A Communion John 6.56 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my
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
would bury in the Dunghill chines of porke or puddings or any swines flesh which their neighboures courteously bestowed upon them they further bragged they would know the saved from the damned by their lookes the Lords day they regarded not and were as obstinate as the Iewes laughing at imprisonment and punishment as a good poore man complained of his wife to me and was it not time that the supreme Magistrate should looke to them If we consider the Scripture of the new Testament which must first be heard we shall finde that Christ doth not diminish but rather augment the weight force and power of divers other commandements concerning Murther see the strictnesse Matth. 5.21 c. and concerning Adultery Matth. 5.28 c. and Matth. 5.24 are choyce Rules for swearing and for other matters in that Chapter but he no where commanded a more rigorous keeping of the Sabbath Indeed he sayd Matth. 24.20 Pray that your flight be not on the Sabbath this evinceth not that he intended a stricter observation of the Sabbath than the Iewes admitted but sensu primo his well-wishings were that they might meete in their flight which was to be both sudden and remote even out of Judea with no impediment either from their opinion of the Sabbath who then thought they might not travell on that day above two miles which they accounted a Sabbaths dayes journey Act. 1.12 or from any other Crosses whatsoever and that Christ meaned not in that place to improve the strict Religion of the Sabbath fairely resulteth from the other words in the first place Pray that your flight be not in the Winter that is cold wet stormy weather or short dayes nor on the Sabbath when ye are unprovided to fly by reason of your full bellies and store of cloathes or your over-strict opinion for in these Cases many more will dye than if the flight were at other times Marke 13.18 He wholly leaveth out the mentioning of the Sabbath and onely sayth Pray ye that your flight be not in the Winter when he mentioneth an impediment from the Sabbath himselfe meaneth not that it is unlawfull to fly farther than two miles to save ones life but argueth from their opinion at that time but in all other places of Scripture where he speaketh of the Sabbath though the Mosaicall Law was then of force and the Sabbath strictly to be observed he inveieth against the Iewish rigour and reduceth it to an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 our Church of England runneth the same way and is not Iewishly zealous In a booke of Canons Printed 1571 by Iohn Day pag. 15. It is said Every Sunday and holiday the Parsons Vicars and Curates shall come to Church so timely and conveniently in due season that the Parishioners having done their businesses may come together c. Lo a permittance of doing worldly businesse before they come to Church and obiter pag. 13. on other times the Parsons are to use their Bowes and shafts onely more to the former point in the advertisement made upon Queene Elizabeths command 1584. among the Articles for administration of Sacraments it is sayd in all Faires and common Markets falling upon Sundayes there shall be no shewing of wares before the service be done Loe here also is no disallowing of shewing wares after service is done but rather an involved indulgence and permittance Besides Christ defended his Disciples for plucking and eating some eares of corne which the Pharisees condemned Matth. 12.1 but Christ proved the lawfulnesse thereof by Davids eating the shew-bread in an exigent which otherwise was unlawfull ver 3.4 Secondly by the Priests who prophane the Sabbath and yet are blamelesse ver 5. by reason that Christ was greater than the Temple and Lord even of the Sabhath day which Lord accepteth more of mercy than of Sacrifices ver 6.7.8 and not fearing their accusation hee both miraculously healed the mans withered hand on the Sabbath day and since every one of them who should have a sheepe fallen into a pit on the Sabbath day would lay hold of it and lift it out how much better is a man than a sheepe wherefore saith Christ it is lawfull to doe well on the Sabbath day ver 11.12 S. Marke 2.27 addeth remarkeably The Sabbath was made for man and not man for the Sabbath and S. Luke speaking of the same Story sayth Christ propounded to them this quicke question Is it lawfull on the Sabbath day to doe good or to doe evill Luke 6.9 apparently implying that not to doe a good worke on the Sabbath day was to doe evill Againe when the Ruler of the Synagogue answered with indignation because Christ healed one on the Sabbath day Christ called him hypocrite Luke 13.25 confuting him by his owne and their generall practise Doth not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his Oxe or his Asse from the Stall and lead him away to watering Observe first nor Oxe nor Asse can take much hurt if they be not wrought though they drinke not from Sun-rising to Sun-set yet for covetousnesse or for pitty they did loose them Secondly they might have loosed them though themselves had not led them away to the watering places for Nature teacheth beasts to know their drinking places but they would lead them away thither which they needed not and being done for lucre was certainely a breach of the Sabbath And Iohn 7.22 The Iewes did on the Sabbath day circumcise a man about which they used many Ceremonies of preparation of abscission of washing of stopping the blood and applying of salves to heale the would though it were but one little part to be wounded and made whole and are ye angry with me saith Christ because I have made a man every whit whole on the Sabbath day Every member of his body and I doubt not also but he healed the ulcers of every ones soule whose bodily parts he healed In 1 Cor. 16.2 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is well translated On the first day of the weeke on the Sabbath day Christ did not take up already made but newly made clay and healed the blinde Joh. 9.14 so that not onely the mayne worke of healing or doing good but all necessary or convenient helpes conducing thereto may be used on the Sabbath day without prophanation thereof for Christ anointed his eyes and sent him to the Poole Siloam and there he washed Againe it is said Matth. 28.1 In the end of the Sabbath as it began to dawne toward the first day of the weeke and Marke 16.1 When the Sabbath was passed the words are most observeable and may involve within themselves not onely that the Sabbath of that weeke was at an end and passed which was true and no man questioneth but even this deeper sense when Christ's rest in the grave had supplied and substantiated the Typicall Sabbath adumbrating his rest for the Sabbaths were shadowes of things to come but the body was Christ Col. 2.17 and his Resurrection from the dead
gradations in termes unconfused and proprietie of Language 1. The preparing of the passeover may imply the choosing of a fit legall Lambe 2. Then succeeding the slaying of it 3. There was the making of it ready that is flaying paunching washing dressing and roasting it 4. Lastly followed eating of it Sixtly when the Disciples had made ready the Passeover it is likely that S. Peter S. John went out to meete him for he cometh in the Evening with the 12. Marke 14.17 and the Preparers went from him forth before as it is vers 16.7 Most certaine it is Christ appointed his Disciples to prepare and make ready the Passeover in which is necessarily included the immolation and himselfe came not till the Evening that is till the exact houre when all things were made ready and when it was to be eaten PAR. 7. IT is a great misprision of M. Iohn Weemse of Lathoker that the Lambes of the passeover were killed at the Altar and brought home to their houses and his proofe is lame from Luke 22.7.8 that the Master of the house caused them to bring backe the Lambe to his house for what intimation is in that place yea or in any place of Scripture that it was so generally either precepted or practised there is no mention of Altar or bringing backe of the passeover but rather the contrary The Apostles were to prepare it the place inquired and resolved upon was an house the preparation was in an house the manducation in a guest Chamber ver 11. One Altar for there was but one could not receive so many thousand Paschall Lambes as was killed within a few houses But in their houses was the passeover slaine and in their houses flayne there was it eaten In all the Evangelists the preparation even from before the slaying to the eating seemeth to be included within the compasse of the House and the Iewish professors runne with might and maine for the democraticall immolation but the people never slew any sacrifices on the Altar PAR. 8. THe next durable ceremony is the rosting of it whole Exod. 12.8 They shall eate the flesh rosted with fire and ver 9. eate it not raw nor sodden at all with water but rost with fire his head with the legges and with the purtenance thereof In which divine words five precepts are comprehended 1. Thou shalt eate the flesh rosted with fire I omit the naturall reasons that rost meate hath lesse crudities than boyled meate that it is wholesome feeding that it is best for supper-meate and more hearty foode and more pleasant to taste I omit Reasons congruentiall that some might have wood nearer than they could have water the waters might be troubled by accident PAR. 9. Mine opiâ—ion is the mystery lay in these things Principally to signifie the extremitie of heate paine and affliction and as it were the torrid Zone under which Christ laboured sweate and languished upon the Crosse 2. To put them in minde how the Israelites themselves were as I may so say tosted and rosted in the Brickilnes of Aegypt and in the Lime-kilnes thereof Here the difference is to be observed betweene the Primary Paschall-dish and the other Paschall-Solemnities betweene the passeover and the feast of the passeover betweene the Sacrament and Sacrifice The offerings might be either sod or baked or rosted or otherwise dressed the passeover the Lambe must be rosted 2 Chron. 35.13 At the great Passeover of Iosiah they rosted the Passeover with fire according to the ordinance PAR. 10. SEcondly this was the next precept Eate it not raw Exod. 12.9 In this poynt you may not thinke that the Israelites would have eaten raw gobbets of beasts slaine if they had not beene forbidden they needed no inhibition to abstaine from raw flesh or that God esteemed them as Canibals or as dogges to gnaw on raw-undressed flesh but by raw halfe-rosted or raw-rosted is meant and by not raw is meant not greene as we use to call it not in his blood the blood or bloody-gravy may not swimme in the dish or besmeare the mouth of the Eaters as is practised at the Tables of many wanton stomacks The spirituall meaning might be against luke warmenesse in Religion against halfe-services in holy things God will not have body alone or soule alone hee will not have halfe thy prayers whilst the great Compasser of the earth and wanderer of the world hath the othâ—r part of thy straying conceptions Thy devotions must be intire Matth. 22.37 Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart with all thy soule and with all thy minde It is added Luke 10.27 With all thy strength To walke in all Gods wayes Deut. 10.12 God findeth fault with the Angell of the Church of Sardis that his workes were not perfect before God Rev. 3.2 God likes not the Laodicaean temper Rev. 3.15 Thou art neither hot nor cold I would thou wert cold or hot so then because thou art lukewarme and neither hot nor cold I will spew thee out of my mouth Raw meate is undigestible and commonly spewed up againe To these things used among men God alludeth and therefore forbiddeth raw-meate Hither you may referre those precepts Levit. 19.19 and apply it against the Hypocrites of our dayes who are forsooth all for the first Table Gods Religion is their onely care but they esteeme not the duties of the second Table these cleanse the out-side but not the in-side PAR. 11. THe third precept was this Not sodden at all with water the Hebrew runneth Not sodden sod in water washed it must be in water perhaps hot water and rinsed it might be to cleanse it from filth or blood soked also it might be for the better defecation parboyled it might not be much lesse sodden Maymonides saith it might not be so much as basted or dripped with water yet in his opinion it might be basted or smeered with wine oyle or any other liquor Butter was permitted in all likelihood to keepe it from burning they were to eate roasted flesh not scorched or burnt Lambe especially in the Land that flowed with milk and afforded much butter He is distempered who thinketh that God prescribed distempering food meate parched like coales rather then well-ordered well-cooked meate in so extraordinary a sacrifice and Sacrament In the great Passeover of the good Iasiah other Sacrifices indeed were boyled in severall instruments but the Passeover the proper Passeover was rosted 2 Chro. 35.13 The vertue in sod meate is extracted in rost meate contracted Sod meate spends its strength in the pottage or some part of it in bettering the broth more than the rost doth I have heard of some who have spoyled their meate to make good pottage If any one aske what was the substance of this shadow and why water was forbid and fire permitted I am loath to give this reason that the great inundation by waters was passed but the fire of conflagration was pointed at or that Moses his taking out
Iudaea were hotter than the City of Rome by so much more neede had they of oftener washings And these causes continuing from the beginning of the world I determine though the latter Romanes in the Casarean Principalitie or Augustan dayes and afterwards as farre exceeded the Jewes in sumptuousnesse and magnificence of bathes as the Mistresse of the world might out-goe her servant in attire yet the Iewes tooke not their first bathings or washings either of their bodies or of some parts from the Romanes as Pererius groundlesly supposeth PAR. 6. Consider what before I sayd of the Iewish often washings and of Christs ascribing those Customes not to the Romanes but to the tradition of the Elders For not one of all the traditions of the Elders was derived from the Romane usance but was peculiar to their owne Jewish Nation and opposed to all other Countries being expositions though farre-fetched and violent of the Mosaicall Law and the Mosaicall Law commanded very many Purifications and washings Exod. 30.21 Aaron and his sonnes shall wash their hands and their feete at the Laver of brasse whensoever they goe into the Tabernacle of the whole Congregation they shall wash their hands and their feete that they dye not it shall be a statue for ever to them Levit. 15.5 Whosoever toucheth the bed of any man having a running issue shall wash his Cloathes and bath himselfe in water and be uncleane untill the Even and the like is commanded in divers verses following and when a man is cleansed from his issue he shall bath his flesh in running water ver 13. The like precepts follow concerning the uncleannesse of women Levit. 16.26 He that let goe the Goate for the scape-Goate shall wash his Cloathes and bath his flesh in water Levit. 17.15 Every soule that eateth that which dyed of it selfe or that which is torne of beasts shall both wash his cloathes and bathe himselfe in water Numb 19.17 For an uncleane person they shall take of the ashes of the burnt-Heifer of Purification for sinne and running water shall be put thereto in a vessell and the Cleane shall sprinckle on the uncleane and on the 7 day he shall purifie himselfe and wash his cloathes and bathe himselfe in water ver 19. In which washings and bathings of their bodies the tradition of the Elders was so strict that the bathing was of none effect if any part or the least particle of the body but so much as the top of his little finger were not washed yea he must wash not onely his head but all his hayre and every locke of his head which the tradition of the Elders esteemed as his body Maymonides expoundeth Moses his Law thus In every place where is mention made of bathing the flesh and washing the garments of the uncleane you must understand it of laving the whole body in water when they washed themselves in their cloathes the Law was not satisfied unlesse the water did sinke through their cloathes to wet their whole bodies or if any part were kept by the cloathes from being washed So the cloathes were rather loose then girt or so girded that the water for all that had free passage PAR. 7. THe Iewish washings looked up higher than the Romane these respected onely bodily neatenesse and cleanelinesse and strength but the Iewes purifications or washings leade them up to sanctification and betokened their being cleansed from sinne Exod. 19.10 and 14. verses sinne is of a defiling nature repentance is a cleanser not onely our cloathes are made white in the blood of the Lambe Revel 7.14 But our hearts are washed from an evill Conscience and bodies washed with pure water Heb. 10.22 Christ cleansing his Church in the Laver or washing of regeneration Ephes 5.26 alludeth to the Priestly washing and clensing in the brasen Laver and to their bathing is reference made 2 Cor. 7.1 Let us cleanse our selves from all filthinesse of the flesh and spirit much Niter Camphire and Sope are not so cleansing as a contrite and a repenting heart and now if Pererius were living would I referre it to his owne judgement whether the Iewes did imitate the Romanes or the Romanes the Iewes sith long before there was any Romane the Iewish Nation used such frequent bathings and by the appointment of God their Law-giver upon more occasions than all the Law-givers else of all Nations enjoyned to their people The Prayer MOst gratious Lord Jesu I meekely implore thy divine goodnesse thoroughly to bathe my soule in thy blood and by thy selfe to purge my sinnes that I may be presented by thee unto God without spot or blot and so partake of thy rich blessednesse in the world to come Amen Amen CHAP. XIX The Contents of the nineteenth Chapter 1. Pererius his third Ceremony Romanes anointed themselves before feasts Sō might the Jewes but not ordinarily the Pharisee reprooved for not anoynting Christ Maries anointing Christ was of Devotion not fashion 2. Romanes used unction before feasts 3. True joy rests in vertue not in vice 4. The Graecians used anointings at their Feasts 5. Severall oyntments for severall parts and uses Alexidemus and Cleopatra's and Aesop his sonne excessive prodigalitie 6. Olyes were of diverse sorts and for diverse uses Oyle Olive commended 7. Jewes used anointing before the siege of Troy Jewes Syrians anciently abounded with Oyles Oyle good for outward inward uses Oyle some Sacred some of common use The divers uses of Sacred oyle Kings Priests Sacred things anointed with it The composition of it David anointed King with Gods Oyle David anointed King twice 8. The Jewes commonly anointed onely Head and feete the Babylonians anointed all their body 9. The Jewes used anointing after washing Ashers dipping of his feete in Oyle 10. Mary Magdalen washed Christs feete with teares 11. Iewes anointed their heads before ever the head of Tolus was found 12. Women among the Iewes in Spaine the best perfumers 13. Anointing the head ordinary among the Iewes 14. Myrrhe and Nard precious oyntments Nard taken sometimes for an Herbe sometimes for an Oyntment 15. Anointing Corporall Spirituall PARAGRAPH 1. THe third Ceremonie which both Iewes and Romanes used and in which as in all the 13. saith Pererius the Iewes did imitate the Romanes and followed their Praesidents was this the Romanes being well anointed lay or sate downe to feasts that the same was practised by the Iewes we may judge because Christ sayd to the Pharisee who had invited him Luke 7.46 Mine head with Oyle thou didst not anoint and the Lord saith Mat. 6.17 When thou fastest anoynt thine head and wash thy face that thou mayst seeme not to have fasted but dined therefore Mary the sister of Lazarus powred oyntment on the head of Christ as he sate at Supper which unlesse it had beene the fashion in banquets Mary Magdalen durst not have done so farre Pererius I answere Quid hoc ad Parmenonis suem What is this to the purpose If all be yeelded how doth this evince that the
exhilarated body with competent meate and drinke wee finde by experience to make us better affected both towards God and Man Hold man hold though thy Master hold that when a man hath eaten moderately he is fitter to receive the Communion then when he is fasting because after meate the head is more purged the mouth cleaner the breath sweeter yet I dare say the head is fuller of noysome fumes the mouth no cleaner when one hath eaten and if thy breath stink common food maketh it no sweeter then the Divine Eucharist I am sure the third Councill of Carthage Canone 29. hath decreed Vt Sacramenta Altaris non nisi a jejunis hominibus celebrentur That the Sacraments of the Altar should not be celebrated but onely by those that are fasting and the seventh Councill of Toledo Canone 2. excommunicateth such as eate any thing before the performance of divine offices It was likewise a Novell position That when a man commeth most unprepared to receive the holy Sacrament then hee commeth best prepared and when he is most sinfull then a sinner may most worthily receive His very words are these in his Sermon of the Eucharist made 1526. Ille ut aptissimus ad communicandum qui ante retro est peccatis contaminatissimus sine peccatis mortalibus nullum debere accedere Hee is fittest to communicate who before and behinde who on all sides is most defiled with sinne and without deadly sinne none ought to come to the Communion He meaneth not that a new life sufficeth without contrition confession satisfaction as some of his fellowes say his words runne to a worse sense For in another Sermon of the worthy receiving the Eucharist eight yeeres before Optima dispotio est saith he non nisi ea quâ pessime es disposit us è contrario tunc pessimè es dispositus quando optimè es dispositus Then art thou best disposed when art thou worst disposed and contrarily then art thou worst disposed when thou art best disposed Are not such words the meanes for men to commit sinnes and continue in them and with unrepentant hearts boldly fiercely impudently to swallow up the heavenly food of our soules the sacred Eucharist rather then exhortations to devout receiving Is this way the proving and judging of our selves doth it teach repentance for sinnes past sorrow shame feare selfe-accusing for the present doth it teach a stedfast resolution and a setled purpose never to doe so againe doth his way encrease faith strengthen hope nourish charity yet these things are expected from a worthy Communicant What preparation was used at the giving of the Law Exodus 19.20 c. What sanctifying of themselves both people vers 14. and Priests vers 22. All this preparation might have beene cut off and saved by Luthers doctrine They did not eate the Paschall Lambe without divers washings and many legall purifications insomuch that a second Passeover in another moneth was ordained for the uncleane by Gods extraordinary appointment Numbers 9.10 Which was practised in Hezekiah his dayes 2. Chron. 30.15 18 19. verses Abimelech gave the hallowed Bread to the sanctified onely 1. Sam 21.4 c. David professed I will wash my hands in innocencie So will I compasse thine Altar O Lord Psal 26.6 Saint Paul adviseth or commandeth 1. Corin. 11.28 Let a man examine himselfe and so let him eate of that bread and drink of that cup. Aug. alluded to the words of the Psalmist when he said Tractatu 26. in Iohannem Innocentiam ad altare pertate peccata si sint quotidiana vel non sint mortifera Carry innocencie instead of Frankincense unto the Altar though thou hast committed no mortall sinnes but sinnes of infirmity The same Divine Saint Augustine Hom. 50. Tom. 10. pag. 115. Constituto in corde judicio adsit accusatrix cogitatio testis conscientia carnifex timor Inde quidem sanguis animae confitentis per lachrimas profluat posiremo ab ipsa mente talis sententia proferatur ut se indignum homo judicet participatione sanguinis corporis Domini Vt qui separari â regno coelorum timet per ultimam sententiam summi judicis per Ecclesiasticam disciplinam a Sacramento coelestis panis interim separetur When a Tribunall is erected in thy heart let thy thought accuse thee thy conscience be witnesse against thee thy feare and dread be thy tormentor then let the bloud of a soule confessing it selfe flow out in teares Lastly let the minde pronounce this sentence That a man judge himselfe unworthy to receive the body and bloud of our Lord That he who feareth to be separated from heaven by the last sentence of the supreme judge may in the meane time bee separated according to Ecclesiasticall discipline from the Sacrament of the heavenly Bread By which words in the meane time might well be inferred that S. Augustine differed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 heaven wide from a novel German who would have a man fall upon the Sacrament with mortall offences on his soule with unwashed hands having newly committed sins Vastantia Conscientiam devoratoria salutis which lay waste a mans conscience and woorie his salvation He avoucheth the best disposition to be the worst and the greatest preparation the unfittest But Augustine would have a man after mortall sinne to abstaine from the most holy Eucharist a competent time till hee had repented till hee had proved and judged himselfe till hee had confessed his sinnes and laboured to wipe away the blots by his teares Which truth is confirmed divinely by our sacred Liturgi If any of you be a blasphemer of God c. unto these words so shall yee be meete partakers of these holy mysteries when Christ said Come unto me all yee that are heavie laden he meant not with loads of unrepented sinnes for as such cannot move one foot toward Christ to such obstinate sinners Christ is a judge and condemner not a mercifull Saviour And the words cannot aime at that sense for then not onely the spirituall food in the Sacrament but even Christ should bee the great allurer unto sinne as being abettor thereof which God forbid for then not onely a window but a doore were set open to all iniquity and villany but the meaning of that most comfortable invitatory is and must be this All yee who have sinned and are heartily sorry for your offences wearied groaning and ready to faint under griefe for the same yea who finde no comfort in your selves but are ready to be swallowed up of despaire or too much not sinnes but sorrow for sins O come yee unto me and this is evidenced by the gratious promise I will refresh you refreshing being opposed to trembling dejectednesse weakenesse swownings trepidations grievings faintings which are fruits of the heavie-hearted sinner and steps or breathings toward repentance refreshing is not opposed robustae iniquitati to strength of sinning or boystrous coutinuing in iniquity or triumphing rebellion and so the sorrowfull penitent
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
who said Cum lotiâ— animi puritatis ad suscipiendum Saccramentum necessariae monumentum fuerit ante Sacramenti institutionem exhiberioportuit Since the washing of the minde was the monument of the purity which was necessary to the receiving of the Sacrament it ought to be used before the institution of the Sacrament Baronius hath a good argument against the innovating Osiander That the Paschall Lambe being to be eaten in haste if Christ had risen from it and washed their feete before the end of that Supper he had broken the Law but he brake not the Law Therefore it was at the second Supper even toward the latter end thereof that Christ by his owne washing of them prapared them by humility unto the receiving of his owne last best and blessed Eucharist being truely called the Supper of the Lord. If I have not guessed rightly at the true cause and just occasion why Christ washed his Apostles feete yet it is most certaine that he washed them which as I said tooke up about another quarter of an houre of their second Supper No man can reasonably thinke that Christ did wash their feete at the Passeover that was soone ended as the washing and wiping was ended Nor may it be thought that Christ would rise from the most sacred Supper of the Eucharist to wash them This derogateth too much from that divine Supper Therefore the second Supper was the fittest time and in it indeede did Christ wash them For how could he wash the feete of twelve of them severally twenty foure feete in all as they continued at Supper in lesse time then a quarter of an houre and wipe them all and well wiped them out of question with that towell wherewith he was girded Ioh. 13.5 weigh that time by the time we should spend our selves if wee were to dispatch such a businesse if we wash but our owne feete and wipe them above a twelfth part of a quarter of an houre quickly slideth away The Prayer O RedeeÌ„mer of mankinde thou wert pleased to wash the feete of thy Apostles even those feete of Iudas among the rest which had trotted before to the high Priests and Elders to betray thee and those which were apt and readie to shed blood even the innocent blood of thee the Lord of life Wash I beseech thee not onely my feete but my hands my head my whole body and especially my heart that I may be wholly purified and fitted to partake of thy blessed mysteries and by them be united to thee my gracious and mercifull Saviour Amen CHAP. XII The Contents of the twelfth Chapter 1. What was Done Sayd the 2. of the 3. quarters of the houre in the Second Supper Christ beginneth to wash his Disciples feete The Scribes booke Commanded frequent washings The Jewes used much water for purifications both Legall Praescribed 2. S. Peter the Primate and Prince of the Apostles Whither S. Peter lay on the Discubitory bed above Christ 3. Whither Christ washed S. Peters feete first of all Whither Judas was washed at all No washing of the feete no partaking of the Eucharist 4. S. Bernards Pedilavium no Sacrament Christs washing his Apostles feete an example of humility Whither Judas were first washed 5. All the Apostles were washed Vncertaine who first It matters not S. Peters Priviledge 6. S. Peters Christs Dialogue Obedience required Iohn the Baptist called a foole Peters double deniall reproved 7. Bodily washing Spirituall washing 8. Christ kist his Apostles feete Even Judas his feete 9. Whither Christ at the second Supper had on a supping garment Whither he had on a Cloake as Barradius 3. Vestments as Euthymius 5. As some others have thought Chrâ—st at his Passion had 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 10. The last Quarter of the seventh houre or the third part of the second Supper What was Done Sayd in it The first passage is Christs Question His Diversion 11. The Titles of Lord Master forbidden to the Apostles The difference betweene Rab and Rabbi Ambition forbidden The word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attributed to Man God in the Old New Testament How God Man Christ is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Lord. 12. Washing of feete imports humblenesse of minde Christs Precept Example to be imitated Lorinus his story Christ the most perfect example of all Seneca his advice The difference betweene Exemplar Exemplum Examples move more than Precepts The Worthinesse Vnworthinesse of the Administrant addeth nothing detracteth nothing from the Sacrament 13. Motives to Humility Servants equall to their Masters in participation of Troubles Blessings Servants inferiour to their Masters in Civill Morall Oeconomicall affaires 14. Nor Worders nor Knowers but Doers enjoy happinesse PARAGRAPH 1. NOw let me descend to the things done and sayd in this third quarter of an houre the middle part and second quarter of the three allotted as it were to this second Supper About halfe an houre after fixe our holy humble Saviour beginneth to wash the Disciples feete A little before Christs incarnation there was a booke written by the Scribes in which they commanded frequent washings even in the times of dinner or supper because there were many Legall uncleannesses which came by the very touch of divers things and by which they were uncleane till the Evening Therefore had they store of water alwayes in a readinesse At the Marriage in Cana Iohn 2.6 There were set sixe water-pots of stone after the manner of the purifying of the Iewes Sc. aut legalem aut traditionalem aut convivalem either Legall or traditionall or convivall Each water Pot containing two or three firkins a peece non ad potum sed ad lotionem paratae aequales illae hydriae aut vasa aquaria Those water-pots were not prepared for drinking but for washing And in likelihood they had spent some good quantity of that water For Christ commanded them to fill them and they filled them up to the brimme vers 7. And against the Passeover our Saviour did foretell them they should meete a man bearing a pitcher of water Mark 14.13 And when it is sayd He shall shew you a roome furnished among other things it may well be expounded A roome furnished with store of water for they had water alwayes in a readinesse for purifications prescribed by the Elders as well as for legall purifications Ciacconius is of opinion that water was given for their feete at the entrance into the houses yet it was to such as were soule and uncleane for if they were cleane they presently sate downe saith he But Baronius from the Rituall saith the Jewes washed their feete twice at the Paschall Lan be once at the eating of the flesh and once at the eating of unleavened bread Either the Rituall or Baronius confoundeth matters for they are not Paschall Lambe but with unleavened bread first taken Baronius should rather have distinguished two suppers Legalem communem the Paschall and Common Supper then make one Supper of the Lambe another
proceedeth Quibus non tacuit esse inter illos tanti seeleris hominem tamen primum Sacramentum corporis sanguinis sui Nondum ipso excluso Communiter Omnibus dedit From whom he did not conceale that there was among them so wicked a Villaine as he was and yet notwithstanding he gave the first Sacrament of his body and blood generally to all He to wit Judas being not as yet excluded out of their company Theophylact hath a wild crotchet on Mat. 26. That Iudas dranke Christs blood but reserved and hid the bodie of the Lord of shew it to the Iewes This is rather Divinatio quam opinio saith Barradius rather a conjecture than an opinion Somnium potius quam Divinatio say I rather a dreame than a conjecture The Prayer MOst mercifull Saviour thou wert very mercifull unto Iudas himselfe and didst use many wayes to worke his conversion but he did harden his heart the more in evill obstinacie and played the part of a stout hypocrite and hee would not be reclaimed but upon his detection he grew more desperate O father of all consolation give me a tender heart and keepe it so still that I may bee terrified with thy threatnings and comforted by thy promises and may effectually be mooved with those meanes which thou hast ordained to bring me to Salvation Amen Amen CHAP. XIV The Contents of the foureteenth Chapter 1. Authorites that Judas did not receive the blessed Eucharist Hilarius Rupertus Innocentius 3. Theophylact Tatianus Alexandrinus Gregorius Pachymeres Turrian Maximus Ludolphus Barradius Beza The ground of S. Augustines and many other famous mens errours concerning this point Reasons to proove that Judas did receive the blessed Eucharist 2. The 1. Reason 3. The 2. Reason 4. The 3. Reason 5. The 4. Reason 6. The 5. Reason Christ never shewed any extraordinary favour to Judas S. Augustine reports strange courtesies of Christ to Judas Judas borne at Marmotis as saith S. Bernard Much holinesse required to the participation of the body and blood of Christ Notorious wicked men not to be admitted to the Communion 7. The 6. Reason when the Devill first entred into Judas The prime intentions of the Compilers of our Liturgie concerning those words Lest the Devill enter into you as he did into Iudas c. Satanentred into Judas at severall times PAR. 1. AUthorities that Iudas did not receive the Sacred Eucharist are many Clemens Apostolicarum Constitutionum 5.13 Mysteria pretiosi corporis ac sanguinis sui nobis tradidit absente Iuda He gave unto us the Mysteries of his precious body and blood in the absence of Judas Hilarius Canone 3. in Matth. Sine Iudā Pascha spirituali accepto Calice fracto pane conficitur dignus enim aeternorum Sacramentorum Communione non erat The spirituall Passeover was instituted by the taking of the Cup and the breaking of the bread without Iudas for he was unworthy to be partaker of the everlasting Sacraments Rupertus in Iohan. Cap. 6 Diligentius Evangelistarum narratione doctorumque confideratâ diversitate citius deprehendi potest Iudam huic Sacramento Corporis Sanguinis Christi nequaquam interfuisse If we will diligently consider the History of the Evangelists and diversitie of the opinions of divers Doctors we may easily perceive that Iudas was not at all at this Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ Innocentius tertius patet quod prius exiit Iudas quam Christus traderet Eucharistiam It is plaine to be seene that Iudas went forth before Christ delivered the blessed Eucharist Theophylact. on Mat. 26. citeth others for this opinion with a good reason annexed Quidam dicunt quod egresso Iuda tradidit Dominus Sacramentum aliis Discipulis Proinde nos sic facere debemus males arcere à Sacramentis Some say that when Iudas was gone forth the Lord delivered the blessed Sacrament to his other Disciples And therefore we also ought to doe the like and to put backe the wicked from the Sacraments Tatianus Alexandrinus placeth Iudas his Egresse before the Sacred Mystery was consecrated Gregorius Pachymeres the Scholiast of Dyonisous Areopagita Excludit Dominus segregat justissimè Iudam qui non sanctè Convivio interfuit The Lord doth exclude and separate Iudas and that most justly because he was not present at the banquet so holily and religiously as he ought to have beene Indeede hee imagineth that Christ gave panem Vinum mysticum Iudae post discessum ejus Eucharistiam praebuisse Apostolis Mysticall Bread and Wine to Iudas and that after his going forth he gave the blessed Eucharist to his Apostles If he meane the dipped sop which had in it a Mysterie all this may be granted and yet our Conclusion is constant from him that Iudas partaked not of the Eucharist Turrian proveth from Dyonisius Areopagita that Iudas are not the blessed Sacrament Maximus an old Greeke interpreter of Dionysius Areopagita expoundeth him as denying that Iudas tooke the Eucharist But suppose I grant that Dionysius his owne words be dubious yet Pachymeres Turrian and Maximus say Judas was excluded Ludolphus the Carihusion Cap. 55. placeth the separation of Iudas before the administring of the Sacrament and Cap. 57. Post egressum Iudae after Iudas was gone forth when the cleane remained with their cleanser Christ comforted his Disciples and made a Sermon unto them full of sweetnesse and love honied with heavenly honey enlightned with light from God Corruptus ille uter foras missus fuerat Iudas that corrupt vessell was sent forth whom Christ knew to be unworthy c. Barradius is expresse that Iudas was excluded from the Sacred Body and Blood of Christ The worthy Hierome Zanchius whose Authority may passe for many Tom. 2. in quartum praeceptum Lib. 1. pag 762. truely opineth that Iudas his receiving of the holy Eucharist apertè pugnat cum historia Johannis Evangelii is cleane contrary to S. Iohns Gospell and saith expressely Lucam fecisse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in his narration that Iudas his hand was with him on the board Beza on Iohn 13.30 from the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 presently went forth gathereth a good argument that Iudas was not at the sacred Supper Quum igitur non nisi Mensis secundis sublatis Dominus Sacrosancta sua Mysteria instituerit Luke 22.20 Since Christ began not his Sacred Supper till the two former suppers were ended and since Iohn saith after the sop Iudas went out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 continuò statim immediately they have the more certaine opinion who thinke Iudas not present at the Eucharist why S. Luke saith as if after Eucharist Christ sayd Luke 22.21 Behold the hand of him who betrayeth me is on the board with me wee must explaine by the other Evangelists from whom it is apparent that this speech was made before the Eucharist which was the last close of this feast The same Beza on Luke 22.21 on the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or
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
16. cap. 31. thus Peccatum Corinthiorum quod reprehenditur ab Apostolo etsi propriè ad Naturam substantiam hujus Sacramenti admittebatur erat conjunctum cum venerandi mysterii contemptu contumelia in iis nempe conviviis quae Sacramento adjicere moris erat exercendae charitatis ergô propterea Paulus totam illam Corinthiorum actionem quae sacro communi convivio constabat à potiore parte vocat Coenam Dominicam The sin of the Corinthians which the Apostle finds fault withall though it belonged not properly to the nature and substance of this Sacrament yet because they committed it by occasion of the Sacrament and was accompanied with the contempt and shame of the venerable Eucharist namely in those Feasts which custome added to the Sacrament to excercise their charity therefore Paul called all that action of the Corinthians which consisted of a sacred and common Banquet from the better and nobler part thereof the Supper of the Lord. But that great scholer is miserably deceived in this following thing Manè sine dubio saith he Corinthii Eucharistiam celebrabant quam sequebantur posteà epulae Communes Out of doubt the Corinthians received the Eucharist in the morning and the Common Feast followed after Yet the Apostle fully intimateth that the Corinthians kept their refections in the Church Before they received the blessed Eucharist and some of them were kept with great excesse as I proved before Casaubone his Sine dubio out of doubt is but a fancy of which himselfe made no doubt others do Another error is in the same chapter That what S. Paul calleth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Supper should rather be tearmed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 prandium a dinner if we respect the time or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a breakfast And he alleadgeth this reason out of Chrysostome according to the Churches usage which the Apostles out of doubt instituted of receiving of the Sacrament Early and Fasting that Heavenly banquet may be tearmed a breakfast or a dinner Suppose this were so that the holy Communion of the Corinthians may be ought rather to be called in respect of the time of taking it a breakfast which they took only Salivâ virgineâ with Virgin spittle or fasting as it is apparently false yet ought it to be tearmed the Supper of the Lord. For the Lord took it not at breakfeast or at dinner but at night only at the Third Supper And this is enough to justifie the title of Tricoenium Justinian the Jesuit neare the place above-cited saiâ—h the words Postquam coenavit after he had supped may be expounded not only of the Paschall Lamb but also of the Common Supper Nam sub finem coenae communis instituta est Eucharistia for about the end of the Common Supper which was the Second Supper Christ did institute and celebrate the Eucharist which is the Third and Last Supper of our Lord called by S. Paul 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 called by Dionysius Areopagita 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The most Heavenly and Archi-mysterious Supper as Casaubone well observed called by other Fathers and by Baronius and Justinian Coena Domini The Supper of the Lord as you may see the proofes at large in Casaubone Dei Coena Gods Supper saith Tertullian ad uxorem 2.6 Augustines appellation is Communio Coenae the Communion of the Supper de Anima cap. 6. 11. In the eleaventh place I think the words of Casaubone require more proofe or are to be distinguished upon when he saith Out of doubt the Apostles did appoint the Church to receive the Sacrament Early and Fasting That the Churches did so and did well to do so in later times is confessed That some Churches did take the holy Communion Early and Fasting in the fourth Age is also confessed It was a fault objected against Chrysostome that he gave the Communion Post sumptum cibum after the Christians had broken their fast The Romans used this peculiar king of action when they swore they took up a stone and did fling it from them and prayed May Jupiter throw me away as I fling away this stone if I speak not truth The good old father S. Chrysostome was much moved with that false suggestion and thereupon with enough if not too much earnestnesse He perhaps alluded to the oathes of the Gentiles but certainly swore in Christian tearmes If I have done so let Christ cast me out of his Kingdome In his seven and twentieth Homily in 1 Epistolam ad Corinthios he saith you before you receive the holy Eucharist do Fast that you may some way or other seem worthy to Communicate and if that be a sound Rule in the Decretals that None should beare witnesse but Fasting whereby they may the better consider what they sweare I judge that propter dignitatem corporis Dominici for the honor of the Lords body no sustenance should be taken before the blessed food which strengtheneth our soules be taken by us And yet if Chrysostome had administred the Sacrament after meat he instanceth in the example of our blessed Lord. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who administred the Communion after Supper S Augustine himselfe tooke it Fasting propter honorem corporis Dominici for the honour of the Lords body yet he ad Januarium confesseth some Churches of Africa received the Sacrament in the end of the day others received it both in the Morning and in the Evening Augustines ad Januarium Epist. 118. cap. 4. is sufficient authority that on Good-friday anniversarily the Church received the blessed Sacrament twice once in the Morning once in the Evening Et cap. 7. Plures propè omnes in plerisque locis eo die Coenare consueverunt Most and almost all used to take it at Supper And the priviledge of this day viz. to receive the blessed Eucharist at night continued till the dayes of Pope Honorius who brake it off And though Augustine himselfe with his were wont to fast Then tocelebrate the Communion Then to sup cap. 5. yet the same Augustine ibid. cap. 6. Liquidò apparet quando primùm acceperunt discipuli corpus sanguinem Domini non eos accepisse jejunos It is a plaine case that when the Disciples did first receive the body and blood of the Lord they did not receive it fasting The Apostles at first are not the Eucharist Fasting But wee must not therefore calumniate the Universall Church because they always take it Fasting For it pleaseth the holy Ghost that for the honour of so great a Sacrament the Lords body should be eaten before other meats and therefore per universum orbem mos iste servatur this custome is kept over the whole world And the contrary custome of receiving the Eucharist after supper was forbidden by the third Councel of Carthage Canone 29. except only on the Anniversary day of the Supper of the Lord. Yea that very permission and indulgence of receiving the Sacrament at night only on Good-friday at night was disannulled
Bread but they did also Eat their Meate with gladnesse and as by the first words the Eucharist may be well understood For the bread which we breake is it not the communion of the Body of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 That interrogation is in effect a doubled affirmation so by the phrase of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 capiebant or sumebant cibum they did eate their meate their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Love-feasts are apparently signed out I say with Montanus that in those times Eucharistiae Sacramentum repetebant assiduè They tooke the blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist daily and with Beza that by the word Bread the Hebrews understood all kinde of meats and will not deny but the Hebrews did make their bread broad and thinne that they were rather broken than cut But since there is mention both of Breaking of Bread and eating of Meate I shall appropriate the first to the holy Sacrament the second to their feasts of charity and be bold to averre that these words in the cited places designe both And I wish that Beza had noted that though the Corinthians did abuse both their blessed Sacrament and their Love-feasts also by mingling one with another and profaning the Churches in making them places of common repast yet this was somewhat After this story in the second of the Acts when the Agapae succeeded the blessed Sacrament as the second Supper of the Iewes succeeded their Paschall For their Breaking of Bread was before their Eating of Meate And I thinke the degrees were these They daily continued in the Temple There was the place of prayer Act. 3.1 They are their Bread their sacred Bread Domatim at Home or from house to house or at one time in severall houses For in the Temple they could not doe so persecution and the sword hung over them A private house could not affoord competent roome and decent spaces for above three thousand to receive day by day And therefore they imployed diverse houses to that purpose Though it be said they were All together verse 44. yet saith Chrysostome not in One place or roome but All together in Grace faith charity unity of the Spirit and singlenesse of heart vers 46. All of them having but One minde One heart After this in the third place were their Love-feasts carefully tended and ordered by the Apostles themselves at first and then was no abuse But when the number of the Disciples increased the Apostles applyed themselves to Better things and left the guidance of Love-feasts in part to others Then crept in partiality and discontent and there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews because their widowes were neglected in the daily administration Act. 6.1 Their Love-feasts were daily administred as well as the blessed Sacrament Whereupon the twelve Apostles called the multitude of Disciples unto them and said It is not reason we should leave the word of God and serve Tables vers 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ministrare mensis i conviviis or in conviviis saith Beza to set forth the Love-feasts or attend on them And most divinely to cut off all cavills they appointed all the Disciples to choose out of themselves Seven men of honest report full of the holy Ghost and wisdome Act. 6.3 to present them to the Apostles both for that and other services The Disciples chose them the Apostles prayed and laid their hands upon them Yet neither the care of the Apostles nor the deputed authority of the Seaven Deacons whom the Apostles did appoint over this businesse Act. 6.3 could keepe the Christians in due course but Satan did sow his tares and bred divisions and introduced innovations so that they ate the body of our Lord and dranke his blood with Other meats and that in the very Temple most intemperately and partially Not discerning the Lords body to the great scandall of others so that the Apostles were faine to take notice of them to reprove and reforme them The Prayer GRacious God fountaine of light we miserable men are led in darknesse and wander up and downe in it we stumble and fall and run into an hundred by-paths rather than in the way of truth We see not so well as we ought Our intellect is mistaken our will is perverse O thou who inlightnest one way or other all men that come into the world shew me thy brightnesse Guide and governe me Into thy hands doe I commend my poore spirit with all the faculties both of my soule and body Let thy holy rayes incompasse me deliver me from both outward and inward darknesse and bring me to see thy face for Iesus Christ his sake Amen Chap. II. and fourth Generall Wherein are demonstrated certaine Reasons why the sacred Eucharist was substituted to the eternall disannulling of the Passeover 1. Diverse Ends why the Third holy Supper was instituted 1. Reason To substantiate the praeceding Type The difference between Fulfilling of a Law and realizing or consummating of a Type Tertullian censured Hierome applanded The Passeover was a figure of the Eucharist and of Christs Passion All figures are not Antitypes 2. 2 Reason To conferre more grace upon us by It than was given unto the Iewes The figure must come short in excellency to the thing figured The vertue and effect of the Lords Supper in us 3. 3 Reason â—o praefigure Christs death and going out of the world All Sacraments of the Old Law were figures of the Eucharist and did finally typifie Christs death 4. 4 Reason To be a Remembrance to us of Christs death till his comming againe The holy Eucharist not onely sealeth and signifieth Grace but also conferreth and exhibiteth it by it selfe in the true use thereof How farre forth this effect is to be understood Why Christ received the blessed Sacrament before he went into the Garden Christ had degrees of devotion Not to faint in Prayer The blessed Virgin Mary not so full of Grace but that shee was capable of more latitude 5. 5 Reason To unite us to Christ 6 Reason To breed brotherly Love and to unite us one to another Hence the Communion of Saints the Eucharist called the Communion 7 Reason To be an Antidote against daily sinnes The Eucharist called Panis supersubstantialis and by S. Ambrose Panis quotidianus 8 Reason To further our Spirituall Life 9 Reason Because it is the Sacrament of supernall charity and filiation PARAGRAPH 1. YEt because it is a vanity to institute any new matters unlesse men be moved to it by very good reasons and lawfull inducements Let us now examine Why this Third holy Supper was instituted and we shall finde that the Ends were diverse I will instance in some and 1. First in this It was Appointed to this purpose viz. to Substantiate the Preceding Type There is great difference between Fulfilling of a Law and Realizing or Consummating of a Type By Eating the Paschall Christ did as the Law commanded and in that point fulfilled the Law but if he had
as dividing one chapter into soure chapters another or the second chapter into three chapters Nonnus observeth not our chapters much lesse verses Suidas doth otherwise distinguish the chapters Cyrill maketh twelve bookes on Saint John as if all were concluded in twelve chapters Who desireth to see more let him have recourse to the cited place of that rare Scholer and he shall find admirable curiosities concerning chapters and verses of the New Testament and he shall not repent him of his labour And let him consult with Sixtus Senonsis Bibliothecae Sanctae 3. pag. 157. c. Let me adde somewhat more The Arabick Translator is much different from all others Francis Junius in his preface before the Arabick translation of the Acts Arabs noster capita nec sine judicio aliter planè distinguit atque in libris nostris distincta sunt consimiliter versus alios dividit in nostris confusos Alios conjungit disparatos suâ compositione id quod fuerat obscurius tanquam adunatis stellis illuminant Our Atabick Interpreter saith Iunâ—us distinguisheth not without cause or reason the chapters otherwise than they are distinguished in our bookes Likewise concerning the verses he divided some which are confounded together in our bookes and joyneth others together which were disparate and sundred And by this his Composition that which was more obscure he ilustrateth and illuminateth as by a conjunction of stars Heinsius in the fore-cited place concurreth with unius that some others divisions are better than those which we now have in use in some things His words are Intelligimus eos nonnunquam meliùs quae non haererent divisisse where some chapters or verses had little dependance one upon another they sometimes better distinguished them than we doe now I answer if in some few of their variations they come neerer to conveniency than ours doe which I will not wholly deny yet if I have any judgement they have strayed worse than the Greek divisions have done in other places whilest they strive to be menders that ought to be but Translators Indeed if Saint Mark had delivered the Gospell to the Syrians as themselves say he did and if their distinguishments be now such as Saint Mark left them it would make much for their authority Or if any of those Arabians Acts 2.11 who were at Jerusalem at Pentecost had in the dayes of the Apostles translated the Gospels and kept them since from alteration we might ascribe much to it But concerning the Syriack translation Non desunt etiam quaedam in ea editione quae viris doctis piis non admodum placent There are somethings in that edition which holy and learned men are not well pleased with saith Bellarmine And I cannot easily be brought to beleeve that S. Mark delivered to the Churches of Syria and Egypt the Syriac edition of the New Testament since neither Clemens Alexandrinus nor that living Library Origen who laboured more about the Editions than ever any other did Nor Eusebius nor Athanasius nor Dydimus nor Theophilus nor Epiphanius nor Hierom nor Cyril nor Theodoret nor other Fathers who were Bishops or Priests in Syria or Egypt since none of these Fathers who lived there mentioned any such Edition or Translation it shall passe with me as a work of later times The same Arabick translator maketh fifty chapters of the Acts of the Apostles whereas we have only 28. chapters The first Epistle of S. Paul to the Corinthians in the Arabick hath 21. chapters having only 16. chapters with us The second Epistle hath only 12. chapters in the Arabick and yet we have 13. chapters in the Greek Ammonius divided every one of the foure Evangelists into many chapters S. Matthew into 355 chapters S. Marke into 135 chapters S. Luke into 344 chapters S. John into 232 chapters So Sixtus Senensis Bibliothecae sanctae lib. 3. pag. 160. relateth If such difference be in chapters which is the mainer division there must needs be more variant diversity in the verses which are the subalternate differences depending on the chapters Much more might be said but I have wandred too long and returne to what I handled before namely That we have no reason of necessity to expect that Christs administring of his Third and Last Supper should be distinguished by the beginning of a new chapter For it is not so in any other of the Three Evangelists Nor are the chapters and verses of Divine institution but servient to the Churches ordination varying according to the opinions of diverse ages and in the opinion of Junius and Heinsius may be better than now they are And yet there might be a new chapter in ancient times when Judas went out the old one ending John 13.30 at these words And it was night For presently thereupon in all likelyhood was the blessed Eucharist administred and the Evangelist S. John wholly omitted what the other Three Evangelists had so fully described And a new chapter might begin John 13.31 Or if not a new matter namely our thrice blessed Saviour his holy heavenly last Sermon Sermo Domini in coenaculo which the other Three Evangelists very briefly touched at but S. John declareth at large from John 13.31 to John 18.1 Foure whole chapters and more in a continued and uninterrupted manifesto or declaration PAR. 8. LAstly since it is apparant even to sense and rectified reason that Christ mingled not his most sacred Third Supper and holy Eucharist with ordinary meats but took it by it selfe as a distinct Sacrament of the New Testament and as a glorious testimony of the Law of Grace there is no place in my opinion so likely to establish our Saviours administration of it as immediately upon Iudas his excommunication and secession And when the holy administration was ended to the joy of the Apostles and to the glory of God Our divinest Saviour brake forth into this Jubilee and exultation of joy Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him viz. when his Flesh and Blood were made a glorious Sacrament of the New Law then Christ was glorified and God in Christ How was Christ at that instant glorified above other times if not by Iudas his departure and Christ giving the holy Eucharist to his holy Apostles Or where could it be given more commodiously As for the words Edentibus ipsis I have heretofore cleared them by good authority that they are not to be taken strictly as if whilest meat was in their jawes and whilest their mouths were full and their teeth champing Christ gave them the Supper of the Lord nor as if we were not to receive the hallowed food but as we are eating of some other things nor as if it were essentiall to have a co-eating No Christian heart can think so For it were an undervaluing of the Body and Blood of the Lord and little or no discerning of the Lords Body from other common meats yea indeed an horrid mingle-mangle But the words are to
the Crosse For betweene Finite and Infinite is no preportion Will not the thought hereof stirre us up to more solemne devotion when we receive It than when we take our common repast I shall never be perswaded the Apostles were so regardlesse so uncivill as to take so heavenly a benefit without humble thanks prayers and sublimated devotions And what is held sordid and slovenly among us to lie along or sit when people receive it from us ordinary Ministers must it not needs be much worse when the Lord of heaven adminiâ—red his owne Blood in his owne Person if the Apostles did so Therefore I shall hardly beleeve the Apostles partaked of that heavenly food either sitting or reposing themselves on their discubitory beds Concerning his Body How admirable things are spoken of it Joh. 6.50 This is the Bread and it is very likely he pointed at his owne Selfe when he said Those words And the Antithesis following evinceth he spake not of Temporall food But above all the declarative positive Asseveration in verse 51. seemeth to prove so much c. to the fifty-ninth verse This is my Body which is Given for you Luk. 22.19 This is my Body which is Broken for you 1 Cor. 11.24 He eateth and drinketh Damnation who discerneth not the Lords Body verse 29. A poore discerning there is of the Lords Body if they shall eare It with no more preparation no more devotion than they doe Other meate in the same order and manner and at the same Table sitting or discumbing Let me empty my soule into thankfull humble prayers and my body be powred out as water on the earth by lowest prostration yet I shall think I am not enough dejected or mortified Luk. 5.8 Peter fell downe at Jesus knees saying Depart from mee for an a sinfull man O Lord. Did he so when he faw but a great draught of fishes and was astonished at it verse 9. Therefore let no man imagine he would sit or lie along in a carelesse indevout posture when he Beheld and Received the food of his soule by which his sinnes were remitted and the sinfull old man pardoned and sanctified S. Paul when he administred the holy Communion preached unto the Disciples and continued his speech untill midnight Act. 20.7 And when they had received the Sacrament S. Paul talked a long whole even till breake of day verse 11. That the Breaking of Bread was the Giving and Receiving of the holy Communion is proved First because it was on the First day of the weeke that is the Lords day Secondly And the Disciples were gathered together to Breake Bread which in the Scripture phrase is the Eucharist Thirdly S. Paul preached before and preached after which was not usuall at common meales if the Eucharist had not preceded Fourthly he preached till Midnight But then they were wont to fall to their common meat Fifthly it was a sacred Farewell of S. Paul with the Disciples and so in likelyhood he both tooke the heavenly Viaticum himselfe and imparted it to Others Beza on the place acknowledgeth That after the mysterious celebration they used to eate common food So the Eucharist in his opinion was first But Augustine Epistola 86. saith The bread videtur esse Eucharisticus seemes to be Eucharisticall or the bread of the Lords Supper And this exposition is confirmed by Act. 2.42 They continued in Breaking of Bread and Payers For though they were not sparing of their materiall bread and meat one to another yet this place seemeth spoken of Spirituall food onely So the Syriac translation using in this Chapter the Greeke word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with whom agreeth the Arabick Interpreter saith Beza in sense though not in the same words Which Syriac Interpreter Beza assenteth not unto for restraining it to the Eucharist But Beza might have considered that the communication of things Temporall or of both Spirituall and Temporall mixed together followeth at large verse 44. c. Lorinus Luther Calvin Gagneius Salmeron Gaspar Sanctius Montanu therefore better interpret it of the Eucharist Lorinus proveth it by Luk. 24.35 He was knowne of them in Breaking of Bread Which Cajetan wittily but groundlesly saith was a wonderfull Breaking of Bread without hands or knife For it should seeme he forgot it is said verse 30. As he sate at meate with them He tooke Bread and blessed it and Brake it and gave to them Againe it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Which may be translated In the breaking of That bread even the Bread Eucharisticall For of it doe Augustine de Consensu Evangelistarum 3.25 Chrysostome Homilia 9. ex variis Matthaei locis and many others both Fathers and new Writers expound it In all the Communions recorded in Scripture either more apparently pointed at or more reservedly described not One was celebrated on the Ground not One upon an Altar What then remaineth but they were celebrated on Tables And to returne to the old place When S. Paul preached in an high chamber even three stories high could you there looke for an Altar or could they there and then so many as they were sit or lie on Couches on the Floore and take that saving food from the plaine floore or pavement No man will imagine it Did S. Paul fall on Eutychus to recover him Act. 20.10 and did he use no humble Gesture when he gave and received the blessed Eucharist In regard of the party Administrant thus we may proceed to argue Did Christ rise up to wash their feete and did he not rise up when he washed their Soules and gave them heavenly food food better than Manna Oh how reverend lowly and humble was Christ when he was at his prayers When he prayed he kneeled downe Luk. 22.41 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pitched or setled on both his knees He fell on the Ground and prayed Mark 14.35 He fell on his Face and prayed Matth. 26.39 His Face adored of men and Angels He fell so for us and that we may learne so to doe since the Disciple is not above the Master And can we imagine that He or his Apostles sate or lay reached out at length when he gave them the saving food of his Body and Blood Credat Judaeus Apella non ego Beleev 't Apella of Jewish seed It never shall come into my Creed I have read of a late devout Cardinall who being on his death-bed and almost dead yet did strive to goe out of his bed and to kneele on his knees because he judged it sinfull to receive the food of his soule lying all along and so by others he was helped up and staying till he had communicated kneeling on both knees This is an example worthy to be imitated though he were a Cardinall When Christ blessed any his Gesture was most holy with eyes and hands elevated Did he blesse and consecrate the holy Bread no otherwise than if it had been to have been still but ordinary bread When he consecrated the heavenliest Food can
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
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
with their severall senses formes and fashions may be included He falleth down to the graven Image and worshippeth it and prayeth unto it Esay 44.15 17. The meane man Boweth down and the great Man Humbleth himselfe Esay 2.9 He humbleth himselfe even unto the Ground such was the worship of their Idols They dawbed them over with silver and gold Opinio mens Imperitorum artis concinnitate decipitur auri fulgore perstringitur argenti nitore candore eboris hebetatur The opinion and judgement of unlearned men is deceived by the exquisitenesse of Art by the shine of Gold and is dulled by the brightnesse of Silver and whitenesse of Ivory They clothed them with costly Garments Dionysius his sacrilegious violence taking away Jupiters golden coate upon pretence it was cold in the Winter and too heavy in the Summer and putting on a woollen coate as warmer in the Winter and lighter in the Summer is knowne to children The knave that stole away two eyes of pure gold massie gold out of Jupiters Image knew Jupiter could see as well without eyes as with eyes or rather that he did not see either with them nor without them But of the Adorning of their Images I have spoken before and yet the very Robbing of them proveth the precedent Adorning of them These things they did when they came neare to Worship them and Adore them PAR. 9. BUt there was another kinde of Adoration of them when they passed by the Images and stood at distance from them Minutius Foelix in Octavio toward the beginning setteth it downe by the actions of Cecilius who seeing the Image of Serapis Vt vulgus superstitiosum solet manum ori admovens osculum labiis impressit As the superstitious people is wont putting his hand to his mouth he Kist it This was a kinde of Honorary salutation of Devotion a Running Adoration a Worship at Distance But that his hand did kisse his Lips or fasten a kisse on them as the phrase may seeme to import and not rather his Lips did kisse his Hand is observable as an Heterogeneall kinde of expression For it is proper for the Mouth and Lips to kisse when the other parts of the body do touch or rub but not kisse Yet if the words be read in the Ablative case he printed a kisse on his Hand by or with his lips we may give it the priviledge of an African phrase And yet in the Hebrew the phrase is reciprocall My Mouth hath kissed my Hand or my Hand hath kissed my Mouth See our last Translation Iob 31.27 and the marginall note In Adorando dextram ad osculum referimus When we worship we kisse our Right hand Apuletus lib. 4. Millesiarum as Elmenhorst quoteth him Let me also defend the African Optatus against Rigaltius who in his Observations on Tertullian towards the end of them pag. 119. among the Inserenda citeth a place of Tertullian in Apologetico cap. 4. The purport is this The lawes were of old that the Creditors should cut in piecest he condemned Debtors who were not able to pay and every Creditor might have a portion of his flesh See Aulus Gellius 20.1 who hath that Law of the Twelve Tables at large In which place Caecilius saith Nothing is more cruell and vastly extreme unlesse as it seemeth this Law was made so cruell to this end that no man should ever venture to endure it For saith he many debtors are adjudged to their Creditors and bound or imprisoned But that ever any was cut into pieces and each Creditor had severall gobbets or portions I never heard or read though the rigor of the Law ran so If there were more Creditors to whom the indebted man was adjudged the Law permitted them to cut in pieces and divide the body of the Debtor among them Iunius Rabirius in his Tractat called Hastarum Auctionum Origo ratio sollemnia hath the words of that Law pag. 7. in Terminis and more succinctly than Gellius Which cruelty by a generall consent was taken away Death was turned into Shame the Proscription of their goods did rather make them blush than bleed For must they not needs blush who when they parted from all their goods by Proscription were to sit on a Stone bare-breeched with naked and seene and shewed buttocks also with their uncovered podds to strike or run at a Marble Lion set before the gate of the Capitoll for that purpose See Cerda on the place of Tertullian Pamelius cleared the way to Cerda though he complaine of Zephyrus his obscurity in this point And yet I wonder why nor Gellius nor the accurate Rabirius doe mention the manner of the Commutation in their punishment unlesse modesty deterred them Rigaltius saith nothing to the maine matter but picks a quarrell and findeth fault with Optatus for the like phrase Suffundere maluit hominis sanguinem quà m effundere said Tertullian Optatus lib. 2. Fundentes sanguinem non corporis sed pudoris At quis alius pudoris sanguis quà m corporis saith Rigaltius As if there were some other blood of shame which was not of the body Wittily enough if it be wit to find Nodum in scirpo a knot in a bulrush For Optatus in the cited book hath it otherwise Episcopos gladio linguae jugulastis fundentes sanguinem non corporis sed honoris You have slaine the Bishops with your tongues as with swords shedding the blood of their honor and credit though sparing the blood of their Bodies And this reading and exposition is confirmed by the words one leafe before Linguas vestras acuistis in gladios quas movistis in mortes non corporum sed honorum Jugulastis non Membra sed Nomina Quid prodest quia vivunt homines occisi sunt honores à vobis Valent quidem membris sed ereptae portant funera dignitatis You have sharpned your tongues as swords which you have moved and thrust into the death and destruction not of Bodies but of Goods you have killed not their bodily Members but their Names and Credit what boots it that they live when their honors are destroyed by you They are healthy but they carry about the carcasse of funerall exequies of their Dignities and Honors He speaks of a Civill death Metaphorically when a mans good Fame is blemished wounded or destroyed Honores occisi sunt Their Honors were slaine as it is in the Margin He doth not oppose Sanguinem corporis sanguini pudoris the blood of the body to the blood of shame sed sanguini Bonorum or Honoris to the blood of Goods or Honor. In the opposition of the bodily blood to the blood of shame is no good sense the resultance of it beeing that the blood of Blushing is not of the Bodily blood but it stands with faire reason to say ye shed the blood not of their Bodies but of their Goods or Honors Howsoever Rigaltius was supine For if his coppy had the words as he cites them which is
pleaseth To conclude he saith not nor can say that Christ himselfe pronounced this Participle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dicens or this Proposition Et Dixit And Said It is true such a Consecration compounded of his Reception of it into his hands of Benediction of Fraction of Distribution and lastly of the Consecratory and Operatory words themselves cannot handsomely be registred in particular without the Addition Saying or And he said yet this evinceth not That Christ pronounced those words or in the consecration needed to pronounce them but they are only the convenient if not necessary expressions of the Relators Diverse think that Christ used more words in the Consecration and among these the learned Franciscus Lucas Burgensis on Matth. 26.26 Non est verisimile tam paucis verbis Dominum usum esse quà m scribunt Evangelistae It is not likely that Christ used so few words as the Evangelists write Thus far I agree with him that whether the Benediction were of God Christ blessing God or a benediction upon the Elementary materials or of both as I judge likeliest some other words were used by Christ not made knowne to us fit for Christ on such an occasion to speake not necessary for us to know or speak Brugensis scarce probably insisteth upon One. Of which hereafter Between Christs Offering and giving the blessed bread to his Disciples on the one side and the consummate Consecration on the other side Christ held out his hand and reached the bread and said not the words And Said Take ye or Take Take Some would Give but others will not Receive Thus God would Give much unto Millions of people if they were willing or prepared to Receive it And gifts there are which come off kindly from the hands of the Donor yet fall short of the hands of such to whom they were Destined because they clutch their Fists ponunt Obicem lay a Blocke in the way Christ gave the hallowed bread not in Promise but in Exhibition He commanded them to Receive it When he wished Thomas to thrust his hand into Christs side John 20.27 it is irreligious to think that Thomas disobeyed or refused to do so though it be not expressed That late Writer was a Foole who said the Holy Baptist was a foole for not doing at first as Christ willed him God graunt me to be as humble and as well accepted by Christ as Saint John was even when Christ the second time spake to the Baptist and over-ruled him to baptize our Saviour And let the haughty German keep his wisdom to himselfe The Baptist was wise to Godward though esteemed a foole by him Epictetus said of old 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Every matter hath two Handles Whereas it is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Take because an Handle and every thing else by which we Receive and Handle and Hold a thing is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And because Taking into ones hand is more proper than to take it into ones mouth I resolve Christ put not the blessed Sacrament into their mouths but into their hands and they did as they were commanded that is Take it For in the Primitive Church the good Christians received it into their hands Tertullian de Coronâ Militis Eucharistiae sacramentum non de aliorum Manu quà m praesidentium sumimus We give it not one to another but each of us taketh it from the hand of him who is set over us And into their hands did they take it at first as Maldonate confesseth And the story in Cyprians booke de Lapsis pag. 284. proveth For one who tooke the blessed Sacrament unworthily Cinerem ferre se apertis manibus invênit found embers in stead of it in his hands and was not able to handle it or eate it When Christ said Take Eate the taking was with the hand as the eating was by the mouth and if the Apostles had Taken it from Christs hands immediately into their mouths this one word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eate would have served for all and Christ had had no need to say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Take For from bidding them Eate floweth this sequell necessarily that they were to receive it into their mouths since otherwise they could not eate Therefore the two words Accipite Manducate are two diverse commandements to be performed by two distinct instruments of Hand and Mouth Nor otherwise to be lawfully administred as I judge unlesse to such as are too weake and sicke to receive it with their hands or have lost the use of their hands or have no hands at all Which cases sometimes have and sometimes againe may fall out and then the hallowed food may be put into the mouths of the Recipients Otherwise not For Christ did both practise it and command his Church to doe the like Doe This This as well as the other things And therefore the delivery of the heavenly Manna into the hands of the Communicants is necessary except in the before excepted cases Indeed we are not bound to doe whatsoever Christ did at the First celebration For he did it at night and but to a few and with unleavened bread which are left at liberty to us But we are bound to follow whatsoever he both did and commanded as he did in this point For he both Tooke the bread into his hands and bidding them Take it he put the consecrated bread into their hands and charged them to doe after the same manner And if we goe to Reason The washed hands and lips are as cleane as the inside of the mouth and therefore it may be put into their hands as well as into their mouths Let humane discourse give way to Authority Tertulliane de Idololatria cap. 7. saith they did Manus admovere corpori Domini put forth their hands to receive the body of our Lord. The Tripartite History 9.30 How wilt thou hold out thy hands from which unjust blood yet droppeth How wilt thou take with such hands the holy body of our Lord Chrysostome in his third Homily to the Ephesians How wilt thou appeare before the Tribunall seat of Christ who with uncleane hands and lips darest touch Christs body Cyprian de Lapsis pag. 281. speaketh of some who offered violence to the body and blood of Christ and then sinned more with hands and mouths against the Lord than when they denied the Lord. And pag. 283. he instanceth in a sacrilegious wretch who was angry with the Priest because the Priest would not suffer him presently with defiled hands to Take the body of Christ or with polluted mouth to drinke his blood Tertullian in lib. de Idololatria Faulting such as promoted the makers of Idols to the Orders of Priests or Deacons cryeth out Proh scelus O abhomination The Jewes Once laid hands on Christ these Daily offer violence to his body by unworthy Giving and Taking of it O manus praecidendae O hands worthy to be cut off Yea the very Schismaticks in old time divided
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
the people who keep off their hats whilst the Atheists are covered and kneele whilst they most profanely do sit The lowest humiliation is too little in that sacred place They cried before Joseph Abrech or bow the Knee Gen. 41.45 Esay 46.23 I have sworne by my selfe the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousnesse and shall not returne that unto mee every knee shall bow which is explained That they shall Kneele before prayer Every knee shall bow to me and Every tongue shall sweare or as S. Paul Roman 14.11 expoundeth it Every tongue shall confesse to God The Apostle S. Paul Phil. 2.9 enlargeth it thus God hath highly exalted Christ and given him a name which is above every name that at the Name of Jesus every Knee shall bow of things in Heaven of things in Earth and things under the Earth Humiliari est ad humum inclinare It is a signe of humblenesse to bow toward the Earth Neither he who stoopeth to take up one falne nor he who prostrateth himselfe and falleth down for dovotion sake amittit statum rectitudinis groweth ever a whit more crooked Yea when he is most down he then standeth up Rectus and rectissimè in curia Coelesti Who humbleth himselfe shall be lifted up of God Psal 119.25 My soule cleaveth to the dust How if not by bodily prostration Abraham bowed himselfe to the ground Gen. 18.2 The great observer of the Commandements Kneeled to Christ Mark 10.17 Act. 21.5 S. Paul and the company rather than they would not Kneele did kneele on the shoare And I have heard of a late Viceroy of Ireland who going to take ship and returne to England devoutly fell on his knees and asked and had an holy Archiepiscopall Benediction and it prospered divinely They worshipped their very Idols Shall not we worship God The meane man bowed down and the great man humbled himselfe which Worship being due to God only because they gave it to Idols it is said Esay 2.9 Therefore forgive them not Which was an usuall and terrible imprecation The father of the Lunatick Kneeled down to Christ Mat. 17.14 The Leper kneeled down to Christ Mark 1.40 2 Chro. 7.3 The people bowed themselves with their faces to the ground upon the pavement and worshipped when they saw the fire come down and when the Glory of the Lord was upon the house And shall not we do the like when we feele the grace of God sanctifying our soules descending upon our spirits and Christ the Glory of his Father inhabiting in our hearts and feeding us When Salomon and the people began their publick devotions Hee kneeled on his knees and spred his hands to Heaven 2 Chro. 6.13 And all the Congregation worshipped untill the burnt offering was finished 2 Chro. 29.28 And when they had made an end of offering Hezekiah and all they that were with him bowed themselves and worshipped vers 29. At all times In the beginning middle and end of Divine service God is to be humbly worshipped S. Hierom on Ephes 3. Fixo in terram poplite magis quod ab eo poscimus impetramus Wee doe the rather obtaine what wee desire when wee kneele Constantine l' Empereur saith It was not lawfull for any to sit in the porch of the Temple except the Kings of Davids loynes They fell on their faces when they came into the Temple And they went backward out of the Temple others say sideward with their faces still looking toward it So great reverence did the very Jews shew toward their Temple Neither is it shame for us to imitate them in our Ingresse and Regresse The Primitive Church did Kneele to the Altars Aris Dei Adgeniculari est Adorare sacro-sanctum Altare Adoremus primum saith an holy Father If at their first approach neere the Altar they Adored It doe you thinke they did not adore Christ when he was to be taken at the Altar whose blessed Sacrament was left upon the Altar Optatus Milevitavus in his sixt Booke against Parmenian In Altaribus votae populi membra Christi portata sunt In the Altars the prayers of the people and the members of Christ are carried God is called upon and the Spirit being requested descendeth on it to the Consecration as Bellarmine holdeth What is the Altar but the feat of the body and blood of Christ Whose body and blood dwelt there for certaine times or seasons Chrysostome in his Oration that Christ is God witnesseth That the Crosse did alwayes use to remaine on the Altar Ambrose lib. 1. in Lucam Doubt not but an Angel is assistant and Christ assistant when Christ is offered up And more fully De Spiritu Sancto 3.12 Carnem Christi hodie in mysteriis adoramus quaem Apostoli in Domino Iesu Adorarunt To this day we worship that Flesh of Christ in the Sacrament which the Apostles adored in Christ Iesus Augustine on Psal 98. Nemo illam carnem manducat nisi prius adoraverit No man eateth the blessed Sacrament before he hath worshipped not the Sacrament it selfe but God or Christ in the Sacrament Ensebius in vitâ Constantini 4.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. He had Soliloquies with God and being pitched on his knees with eyes cast down to the ground he was earnest with God by humble prayers to obtaine those things which he needed When he received our blessed Lord himselfe did Constantine sit on his royall Throne and keepe state or rather descended to the gestures of a thankfull suppliant and humble receiver To the eternall glory of King CHARLES be it knowne unto the remote people who cannot come to see him when he partaketh of the body and blood of our Saviour He doth it not sitting not lying all along not standing but with as much humilitie as the meanest poenitent amongst his Subjects He kneeleth he worshippeth Christ he prayeth he giveth thankes and his gestures are so holy and devout in that sacred participation that as I have beene informed God by him hath turned the heart of a Romanist to embrace the truth on our side And if his enemies did truly take measure of him they would feare his prayers as well as his Armes and his devotion with his power Genua flectimus orantes In prayer-time we kneele saith Origen on the fourth Chapter of Numbers Homil. 5. Arnobius in his first Booke useth this phrase Genu nixo procumbere to pitch on the bended knee The Saints never meet in holy places about holy things without decent reverences expressed by their bodily gestures Detur 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in contrarium The poenitents cast themselves downe ad fratrum genua to their Brethrens knets saith Tertullian which they could not doe without Kneeling themselves And did they not kneele when they received Christ But you will say the Papists in Kneeling doe adore the very Eucharist it selfe viz. the materialls I answer Abuses take not away the right use of things If Mercury first invented Letters saith Tertullian de Coronâ
hands that with a pure mind and neat conscience they may receive the Sacrament Likewise let the Women bring cleane Linnen that they may receive Christs body Baronius Tom. 1. Anno. 5. Numero 148. observeth men might take it into their bare hands Women might not take it but in Linnen which was called Dominicale Hence first the nicity of former times may be questioned Why the Women were to receive it in pure linnen and white but the Men into their bare hands Have not the Women as cleane and white hands as Men If the Womens hands were unworthy to receive it how are the Mens hands more worthy If linnen be to cover or adorne the Womens hands Why will not such an ornament befit Mens hands also In the sixt Synod Canone 3. celebrated Anno Domini 681. there seemes to be a Plea against that custome We do not admit those who make receptacles of gold or of other matter to receive in stead of their hands the Divine mysteries for they prefer the livelesse subject matter before the Image of God If any do so let both the Administrant and the Communicant be separated Again it is the fashion both for Men and Women to receive the sacred Bread from the hands of the Minister some with the thumb and one finger some with the thumb and two fingers and this is not sinfull nor to be condemned in it selfe as it may be carefully delivered and received But if any crumb or particle fall to the ground it is a greater sin than people imagine Tertullian took it very grievously when any such thing was Origen accounteth it a sin and a great sin told the people they did well to think so of such as let any part fall to the ground The words are Tom. 1. p. 102. in Eusebius Episcopius his edition Nostis qui divinis mysteriis interesse consuevistis quomodo cùm suscipitis Corpus Christi cum omni cautelâ veneratione servatis ne ex eo parum quid decidat ne consecrati muneris aliquid dilabatur Reos enim vos creditis rectè creditis si quid inde per negligentiam decidat Circa Corpus Christi conservandum magnâ utimini cautelâ recte utimini You who are usually present at Divine services do know with what warinesse and reverence you preserve the Body of Christ when you receive the same least by chance some small parcell or crumb of the Consecrated gift should slip out from between your fingers and fall to the ground For you do beleeve and rightly beleeve that you are guilty of the Body of Christ if any part or parcell thereof should through your negligence fall to the ground And therefore you do use and rightly use a great deale of cautelousnesse in the preservation of the Body of Christ Pope Pius the first who lived in the dayes of Justin Martyr between 100 and 200 yeares after Christ punished those by whose negligence any of the Lords Blood did fall upon the ground or Altar The like we imagine of the sacred Body Sanctificatis ergo oculis tam sancti corporis contactu communica Cave ne quid excidat tibi The very eyes being sanctified by the touching of so holy a Body receive the blessed Eucharist but take heed that no part of it fall from thee saith Cyril of Hierusalem Baronius Tom. 1. anno 75. Numero 146 saith that when they took the Eucharist in former times certaine little Tables were set before the Communicants as now saith he we hold Linnen cloths before the Receivers And all this was done and is done out of doubt least any particle should fall to the Ground Indeed there is more danger in the nice receiving with the thumb and a finger or two for the Bread is made of many cornes and every corne yeelds such mealy stuffe as may easily by breaking or in the acts of delivery and receiving moulder into crumbs and fall down There is much more care to be had of the keeping whole of such mouldring soft food than if silver gold or pretious stones from which nothing can drop away were to be consigned over or delivered to others Nor is there danger in the fall of them But danger there is in the fall of the Consecrated Bread Wherefore I doubt not but as the words of the Liturgy command not to put the holy bread into the peoples fingers or between their thumb and fingers but into their hands so the meaning is it ought to be delivered into the palmes of their hands as a safer receite and as a safer conveyer unto their mouths than the use of thumb and fingers Tertullian de Oratione cap. 11. Nos non Attollimus tantùm manus sed etiam expandimus Dominicâ passions modulantes â—rantes confitemur Christo When we pray we do not only lift up our hands but we spread them abroad like to the Crosse conforming our selves to the Passion of our Lord. For say I his hands were stretched out But this was done in private prayers In publick prayers they lifted them up but a little way as before I noted out of Tertullian Johan Damasc Orthodoxae Fidei 4.14 Accedamus ei desiderio ardenti Manus in crucis modum formantes crucisixi corpus suscipiamus apponentes oculos labra frontem divinum carbonem concipiamus Let us come to the Sacrament with an earnest desire And framing our hands like to a crosse let us receive the body of Christ crucified and laying our foreheads eyes and lips nigh to it conceive it as a divine coale to burne our sins To conclude in my opinion the left hand bearing up the right and especially in some Paraliticks one hand had need to stablish another and both crossing about the wrists and the palme of the right hand being upward and open at the receiving of the bread the blessed Sacrament of Christs body may be received But at the taking of the Cup there is no need or cause that the palme should be upright yea it cannot be so with conveniency and this doth no way enterfeere with Damascâ—n or our Lyturgy and let the Christian heart judge if this be not the safer way And thus for ought that I can object to the contrary the Apostles themselves might receive the Sacrament and perhaps did I was overjoyed when I found this proofe following agreeing both to my practise and opinion Cyrillus Hierosolymit in Mystag 5. Come not to the Communion with the palmes of thy hands spread all abroad nor thy fingers severed and open but putting the left hand under thy right to settle and establish it in the hollow of thy hand receive the Body of Christ I will not say that any other course of taking is sinfull but I have spoken my opinion for the Conveniency The liberty granted by Christ is not to be curbed or Ephorized by us But let us take heed least our liberty grow to licentiousnesse or that we love singular irregularity For if one