in the Supper 8. Who are to come to the Supper 9. Who are to be admitted to the Supper The three former of these belong to the 75. and 76. Questions of the Catechism the fourth to the 77 78 79. the fifth to the 80. the sixth seventh eighth and ninth to the 81. and under them they shall be placed and handled 1. What the Supper of the Lord is The names given to this Sacrament and the reason of the names FIrst we will see by what names the Supper of the Lord is called then we will in few words define what it is This action or ceremony or rite instituted by Christ a little before his death is called The Lords Supper It is called 1. The Lords Supper from the first institution of it that is in respect of the originall or first beginning of this rite or in respect of the time wherein this ceremony was instituted which circumstance of time the Church for her liberty in case of this quality hath changed For it was a matter of casualty that this ceremony was instituted of Christ rather in the evening at supper time then in the morning or at noon day to wit because of the eating of the Paschal Lamb which by the law was to be celebrated in the evening and was afterwards to be abolished by this new Sacrament It is called of S. Paul 2. The Lords Table The Table of the Lord. It is likewise called Synaxis that is a covenant 3. A covenant of assembly in respect of the assembly and convent of the Church because some either few or many must assemble and meet together in celebrating of the Supper for in the first celebration the disciples were present to them it was said Take this and divide it among you Wherefore it must needs be that there was some number there which also appeareth by the Apostle repeating the first institution where in the end he addeth 1 Cor. 11.20 35. When ye come together to eat tarry one for another And further that moe ought to come together to celebrate the Supper this end of the Supper doth evidently enough shew in that it was instituted to be a token and even a bond of love For wee that are many 1 Cor. 10.17 are one bread and one body It is called also the Eucharist 4. The Eucharist because it is a rite and ceremony of thanksgiving Last of all 5. A Sacrifice it is called also a Sacrifice not propitiatory or meritorious as the Papists dream but gratulatory because it is the commemoration of Christs propitiatory sacrifice And at length it was also called Missa from the offering or from the dismissing of the rest who might not communicate after the Sermon which went before the celebration was finished We retain the name left in Scripture and call it The Lords Supper Now let us come to define the Lords Supper The definition of the Lords Supper The Lords Supper is a ceremony or Sacrament instituted and appointed of Christ unto the faithfull for a memoriall of him whereby Christ doth certainly promise and seal unto me and all the faithfull first That his body was offered and broken on the crosse for mee and his bloud shed for me as truly as I see with mine eyes the bread of the Lord to be broken unto me and his cup distributed And moreover That hee doth as certainly with his body crucified and his bloud shed feed and nourish my soul unto everlasting life as my body is fed with the bread and the cup the Lord received from the hand of the minister which are offered to me as certain seals of the body and bloud of Christ It may be also more briefly defined on this wise The Lords Supper is a distributing and receiving of bread and wine commanded of Christ unto the faithfull that by these signes he might testifie that hee hath delivered and yeelded his body unto death and hath shed his bloud for them and doth give them those things to eate and drink that they might be unto them the meat and dâ—ink of eternall life and that thereby also hee might testifie that hee would dwell in them nourish and quicken them for ever And again That of the other side he might by the same signes binde them to mutuall dilection and love seeing Christ spareth not to give his body and bloud for us This is confirmed not only by Christ in the Evangelists but also by Paul who expresly saith The cup of the blessing which wee blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ Moreover The signe and things signified in the Lords Supper the signes in the Sacrament are bread and wine bread broken and eaten wine distributed and taken The things signified are 1. The breaking of the bodâ— and the shedaing of the bloud of Christ 2. Our union and conjunction with Christ by faith so that wee draw life everlasting from him and are made partakers as of Christ himselfe so also of all his benefits as the branches are made partakers of the life of the vine Wee are advertised of this our union and communion with Christ 1. By the proportion which the signes have with the things 2. By the promise which is adjoyned And the proportion doth chiefly propose and shew two things unto us 1. The sacrifice of Christ 2. Our communion with Christ because the bread is not only broken but is also given us to eat Breaking of the bread a part of the ceremony Now the breaking of the bread is a part of the ceremony because unto it a part of the thing signified doth answer namely the breaking of Christs body of which signification of this signe Paul doth testifie when he saith 1 Cor. 11.24 This is my body which is broken for you Here receiving and eating is part of the ceremony whereunto doth answer the thing signified to wit the eating of Christs body Now this divine and spirituall thing namely the breaking and communicating of Christs body is signified and confirmed by this ceremony which is the breaking and receiving of bread for two causes 1. Because Christ commandeth these rites unto which we ought to give no lesse credit then if Christ himself did speak with us 2. Because he annexeth a promise that they who observe these rites with a true faith must be assured and certain that they have communion with Christ. Wine is added that wee should know the perfection and accomplishment of our salvation to be in his sacrifice and that there was nothing which could be further desired The wine is severed from the bread to signifie the violence of his death because the bloud was sundered from his body 2. What are the ends of the Lords Supper THe ends for which the Lords Supper was instituted are Confirmation of our faith That it might be a confirmation of our faith that is a most certain testification of our communion and union with Christ
is my body which is broken for you this doe you in remembrance of me Likewise also hee took the cup when he had supped and said This cup is the new Testament in my bloud this doe as often as ye shall drink it in remembrance of mee For as often as ye shall eat this bread and drink this cup ye shew the Lords death till bee come This promise is repeated by S. Paul when he saith b 1 Cor. 10 16 17. This cup of thanksgiving wherewith wee give thanks is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ For we that are many are one bread and one body because we all are partakers of one bread The Explication THe institution of the Lords Supper doth confirme unto us by evident reasons what is the true and saving communion of Christs body and bloud and therefore the true sense and meaning of the words of the institution is diligently to be considered The holy Evangelists Matthew Marke and Luke do most especially of all others describe the institution of the Lords Supper and besides them the Apostle so declareth it no lesse plainly in his Epistle to the Corinthians The words of them all are these Matthew Chap. 26.26 c. As they did eat Jesus took the bread and when hee had given thanks hee brake it and gave it to the disciples and said Take eat this is my body Also hee took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them saying Drink ye all of it For this is my bloud of the new Testament that is shed for many for the remission of sins Mark Chap. 14.22 c. As they did eat Jesus took the bread and when hee had given thanks he brake it and gave it to them and said Take eat this is my body Also hee took the cup and when hee had given thanks gave it to them and they all drank of it and hee said unto them This is my bloud of the new testament which is shed for many Luke Chap. 22.19 c. And hee tooke bread and when he had given thanks he brake it and gave it to them saying This is my body which is given for you doe this in remembrance of mee Likewise after supper hee took the cup saying This cup is the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you Paul 1 Cor. 11.23 c. I have received of the Lord that which also I have delivered unto you to wit that the Lord Jesus in the night that he was betrayed took bread And when he had given thanks hee brake it and said Take eat this is my body which is broken for you this do yee in remembrance of mee After the same manner also he took the cup when he had supped saying This cup is the new Testament in my bloud this doe as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me For as often as yee shall eat this bread and drink this cup yee shew the Lords death till he come The words of the Apostle wee will briefly expound and then wee will demonstrate our opinion in this point by true and firm arguments in the Question of Catechisme immediatly following The Lord Jesus This is the Authour from whom it is intituled the Lords Supper wee must therefore observe what the Lord did Lib 2. Epist 3. said and prescribed as Cyprian well warneth us If christ alone be to be heard wee must not attend or regard what any man before us hath thought meet to be done but what Christ who is before all first did perform In the night that hee was betrayed This circumstance is specified by the Apostle to give us to understand that Christ would at the last Supper of the Passeover institute this his Supper to shew 1. That now an end was made of all the old sacrifices and hee did substitute a new Sacrament which should succeed and should from henceforth be observed that Paschal Sacrament being finally abolished and which should signifie the same thing difference onely of time excepted For the Paschal lamb signified Christ which should come and should be sacrificed The Supper Christ already sacrificed Object But when the Supper was instituted Christ was yet to be sacrificed Answ But then was at hand the offering up and sacrificing of Christ For a few houres after hee was sacrificed and the Supper was from that time forward to signifie Christ sacrificed 2. That hee might stirre up in his disciples and in us greater attention and marking of the cause for which hee did institute it and that wee might understand how earnestly Christ would have this Supper to be commended unto us seeing hee did nothing before his death but that which was of most weight and moment Therefore did hee in the very point or instant before his death institute it to be as it were the testament and last will of our Testatour Briefly this clause Paul addeth that we may know that Christ instituted this Supper for a memoriall of himself now ready to die He took bread That is unleavened or not leavened bread which then they did eat of at the table in that feast of the passeover which admitted no leavened bread The institution of the Supper and unleavened bread did concurre then together and fall our by an accident and therefore this circumstance properly pertaineth not to the Supper as neither the evening doth at what time it was instituted neither can a necessity of unleavened bread for this use be hence inforced neither would Christ hereon prescribe any certain manner of baking bread for the Lords Supper Yet notwithstanding the bread of the Lords Supper differeth in use from common bread because this is taken for the nourishment of the body but that for the food and nourishment of the soul that is for the confirmation of our faith and union with Christ And here we are to note that hee is said to have taken bread from the table to wit with his hand hee took not his body therefore neither took hee his body in the bread with the bread or under the bread save only sacramentally for his body lay not on the table but sate down thereat Blessing and thanksgiving are all one in the Supper When hee had given thanks Matthew and Mark say of the bread When hee had blessed of the cup When he had given thanks Luke and Paul say of the bread When he had given thanks Wherefore To blesse and to give thanks both signifie one thing neither can the mystery of Popish magicall consecration be cloaked under these termes Christ therefore blessed that is he gave thanks namely to his Father not to be bread for spirituall blessings I meane for the satisfying of soules that his office being now performed and finished on earth his last act yet remaining to be done the time of his dying for the redemption of the elect was at hand that thus it had pleased the Father to redeem mankind or that the typicall Passeover was
abolished and the signified Pasteover was now exhibited and a memoriall of him was to be signed to the Church or lastly hee gave thanks for the admirable and wonderfull gathering and preserving of the Church Hee brake it That is hee brake the bread which hee took from the table and distributed the same being one among many not any other invisible thing hidden in the bread He brake not his body but the bread as Saint Paul saith The bread which hee brake c. Now he distributed the bread being one among many because wee that are many are one body But the cause for which he brake this bread was to signifie 1. His passion and the separation of his body from his soule Two things signified by the breaking of the bread 1 Cor. 10.16 2. The communion of many with his own body and their bond of union and mutuall love The bread which we breake is it not the communion of Christ For wee that are many are one bread and one body Wherefore the breaking of bread is a necessary ceremonie both in respect of the signification Poure causes why this ceremony is to be retained and in respect of the confirmation of our faith and therefore is this ceremony also to be retained 1. Because Christ hath commanded it Doe this 2. Because of the authority and example of the Church planted in the Apostles time which from the rite of breaking termed the whole action Breaking of bread 3. For our own comfort that we may know the body of Christ to have been as certainly crucified for us as we see the bread to be broken unto us 4. That the opinions of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation may be pulled out of mens minds Take eat This commandement belongeth to the disciples and to the whole Church of the new Testament Whence it is cleer and manifest 1. That the Popish Masse wherein the priest giveth nothing to the Church to be taken and eaten is not the Supper of the Lord but a private supper of him that sacrificeth and a meer stage-play 2. That wee must not be idle beholders of the Supper but religious receivers of it 3. That the Lords Supper is not to be celebrated but in an assembly or congregation where there are such as receive and eat 4. That the Supper is a signe of grace in respect of God reaching out unto us his benefits to be apprehended with a strong faith even as we receive the signe with our hand and mouth This is my body This that is this bread Object Then should it have been said * These Greek pronouns cannot be expressed with the like English particles because the words BREAD and BODY being of divers genders in Greek the Greek pronouns also are divers when as in English our particle THIS serveth for words of all genders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ans 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as much as if he had said This thing which I have in my hand now that was bread And that it is so to be understood is proved by these reasons 1. Christ took nothing but bread he brake bread and gave bread to his disciples to eare 2. S. Paul saith expresly The bread which he brake is it not the communion of the body of Christ 3. Of the wine it is said This cup is the new Testament in my bloud Wherefore after the same manner it is said This that is this bread is my body which is broken and delivered unto death for you The literall sense if it be properly taken can be no otherwise understood then thus The substance of this bread is the substance of my body But so to understand it is an undoubted absurdity for bread is a masse without life baked of corn and not united personally to the Word but the body of Christ is a living substance born of the Virgin and united personally to the Word Christ therefore calleth the bread his body meaning Cont. Adim c. 12. the signe of his body by a sacramentall Metonymie attributing the name of the thing signified to the signe because he appointeth this bread to be signe and sacrament of his body as Augustine himself interpreteth The Lord doubted not to say This is my body when he gave the signe of his body Wherefore far be it from us that we should say that Christ took bread visibly and his body invisibly in the bread For it is to be observed that he saith not In this is my body Or This bread is my body invisible But This bread is my body true and visible which is given for you Moreover these are the words of the promise added to this sacrament to teach us what the bread is in this use to wit the body of Christ that is what Christ exhibiteth and imparteth to the receivers of this bread and beleevers of this promise even his body or that flesh which in the Gospel hee promised to give for the salvation of the world For this is no diverse promise from that hee delivered in the sixth of John John 6.51 but every way the same concerning his flesh quickning us and the eating thereof profitable to salvation Only here the sacramentall rite is adjoined wherewith the promise is adorned and sealed as if he should say In the Gospel I promised life eternall to all that eat my flesh and drink my bloud now I confirme and ratifie this my promise with an outward ceremony that henceforth they which beleeve this promise and feed on this bread may undoubtedly be perswaded and assured that they verily eat my flesh which was given for the salvation of the world and have life eternall By this promise therefore this bread is made the sacrament and signe of Christs body and Christs body is made the thing signified by this sacrament The union of the signe the thing signified in the Sacrament and these two I mean the signe and the thing signified are united in this sacrament not by any naturall copulation or corporall and locall existence one in the other much lesse by transubstantiation or changing one into the other but by signifying sealing and exhibiting the one by the other that is by a sacramentall union whose bond is the promise added to the bread requiring the faith of the receivers Whence it is cleer that these things in their lawfull use are alwayes jointly exhibited and received but not without faith of the promise viewing and apprehending the thing promised now present in the Sacrament yet not present or included in the signe as in a vessell containing it but present in the promise which is the better part life and soul of the sacrament For they want judgement who affirme that Christs body cannot be present in the sacrament except it be in or under the bread as if forsooth the bread alone without the promise were either a sacrament or the principall part of a sacrament Which for you my disciples that is for
your salvation and the salvation of the whole Church Is broken Object But Christs body neither is nor was broken Answ Paul hath a respect to the signification which the breaking of the bread did import now this breaking signifieth the pains and renting of Christs body and the violent sundering of his soule and his body one from the other For as the bread is broken and parted into divers parts so the soul and body of Christ were separated and parted from each other Wherefore the property of the signe is here attributed to the thing signified Doe this These words are a commandement to observe the ceremony which Christ instituted This to wit this which ye see me do do you also henceforth in the Church that is being gathered and assembled together take bread give thanks break it distribute it eat it c. He understandeth the whole action which he commandeth and that to us which beleeve and not to the Jewes who were ready to crucifie him In remembrance of me That is thinking and mediating of my benefits which I have done for you and which are by these rites recalled into your memory and further verily feeling and finding in heart that I give you these my benefits and therefore celebrating them by publick confession before God and Angels yea before men also and so giving mee thanks for them Wherefore the end of Christs Supper is remembrance The end of the Supper is the remembrance of Christs benefits which is not a meer meditation on the history but a calling to mind the death and benefits of Christ and a faith whereby we apply Christ and his merit unto us and gratefulnesse or a publick confession of his benefits This remembrance is the whole whose parts are the memory of Christs benefits faith whereby we apply Christ and his merit unto us thankfulnesse or publick confession of his benefits Whence it is manifest that the Supper was instituted to this end to be unto us a memoriall of Christ putting us in mind what and how great blessings he hath purchased for us and with what and how exquisite torments and bitter death hee obtained them confirming in us also our faith whereby wee apprehend them Wherefore it followeth not Christ did institute his Supper for a remembrance of him Therefore hee did not institute it for confirmation of our faith For this objection is no lesse frivolous then if I should say The holy Ghost confirmeth our faith Therefore the Supper doth not For as it hath been said before the reason followeth not to the removing of the instrumentall cause by the putting of the principall cause as neither doth it follow to the deniall of a part by the putting of the whole for remembrance compriseth the remembring of Christs benefits faith and thanksgiving For by his sacraments Christ remembreth us of himselfe and his benefits and by his sacraments hee raiseth and establisheth in us our trust and confidence in him and further of that remembrance of Christs benefits it must follow that we also yeeld thanks unto him therefore publikely So then the Supper is not only to admonish us of our duty as some think but it must first represent unto us Christs benefit and then afterwards our duty for where no benefit is there we cannot be thankfull Drink ye all of this This commandement of Christ we oppose against the sacriledge of the Pope who bereaveth the Laity of the cup Against Popish administring the communion under one kind and against that sophisticall figment of concomitancie of the bloud with the body under the form of the bread Christ biddeth all eat and all drink The Pope will not permit all to drink but the Priest only the Lay-men he suffereth to eat only because saith he they drink it eating This shamefull dealing is reproved and confuted by Christs commandement Drink ye all of this Here the Popes Sophisters cavill with us telling us that this commandement which we urge and presse on them pertaineth only to the disciples then present who were no Lay-men but Priests But we answer 1. That they fondly imagine Christs disciples to have been Masse-mumming Priests 2. There is no such difference in Scripture as they put of Priests and Lay-men seeing the Scripture intituleth all the faithfull priests of God He hath made us kings and priests unto God Rev. 1.6 1 Pet. 2.9 5. even his Father Ye are a royall and holy priesthood to offer up spirituall sacrifices acceptable to God by Jesus Christ 3. Under this pretext and colour the whole Supper might be taken away from the Laity especially from women if it were true that such men only were to be admitted to the Supper as were at the first Supper Their tale of concomitancy is an impious and sacrilegious pretext which Christ confuteth and discovereth to be false when he calleth the bread by it self his body and the cup by it self his bloud and reacheth both apart to his disciples to be eaten and drunk and commandeth them henceforth to be so ministred apart This cup is the new Testament Or the Covenant as both the * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greek and * Berith Hebrew word admitteth Now it is called the new covenant that is renewed or to speak in a word fulfilled And this new covenant is our reconciliation with God the communion and participation of Christ and all his benefits by faith in the sacrifice of Christ now fulfilled and finished without any observation of the ceremonies of the old Passeover The Supper is called the new Covenant How the Sacrament is called the new Covenant because it is a signe and a seale of this covenant signifying and sealing unto us our reconciliation with God and our conjunction with Christ which is wrought by faith Now Christ in calling the Supper the new Covenant 1. Comprehendeth both the promise and the condition which is expressed in the promise namely our faith and repentance whereof also it followeth that the Supper was for this cause also instituted that it might be a bond to bind us to lead a Christian life 2. Hee maketh an opposition between the new Covenant and the old Covenant which was the Passeover together with the rites thereof For the Supper signifieth Christ offered the Passeover signifieth Christ who should be offered There is notwithstanding no small similitude and agreeing of both for both signifie our reconciliation with God and conjunction with Christ Hence also we conclude that the drinking of Christs bloud is not corporall for the new Testament is but one and all the elect before Christs birth appertain thereunto In my bloud which is shed for you for remission of sins The bloud of Christ is his death In the bloud of Christ is as much as to say In the death or for the death of Christ The shedding of Christs bloud is the merit for which being apprehended of us by faith we receive remission of sins For as often as ye shall eat The
Supper therefore is often to be iterated and celebrated 1. Because of the words of the institution 2. In respect of the end and purpose of the institution because it must be done in remembrance of Christ Shew the Lords death That is beleeve that Christ dyed and that for you and then professe it also publickly before all Till he come Therefore it must be observed unto the worlds end neither is any other externall form to be looked for untill the day of judgement The words of the institution which have been hitherto expounded 1 Cor. 10.16 may be made more plain and cleer by these words of the Apostle The cup of blessing which wee blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ The bread which we breake is it not the communion of the body of Christ The cup of blessing That is the cup of thanksgiving which is received namely to this end that we may yeeld thanks to Christ for his death and passion The communion of the body likewise the communion of the bloud is to be made through faith partakers of Christ and all his benefits the same spirit being in us which is in Christ John 15.2 â—phes 5. 1 John 1.6 and working the same in us which he worketh in Christ Or it is a spirituall fellowship of the faithfull with Christ as of members with the head and branches with the vine Bread and wine is the communion that is it is the signe and testimony of our communion with Christ But this our communion as the Apostle briefly declareth consisteth in this that wee who are many are but one body Whence it is most easie to collect That this communion of Christ is not a corporalleating For it is wrought only by faith and the holy Ghost Christ is the head and we the members and all wee who are members have also a communion of all Christs benefits Therefore the head is common the benefits common and so the members also common among themselves wherefore their love and dilection is common and mutuall Quest 78. Are then the bread and wine made the very body and bloud of Christ ON THE 19. SABBATH Ans No verily a Matt. 26.29 Mark 14.24 But as the water of baptism is not turned into the bloud of Christ but is only a signe and pledge of those things that are sealed unto us in baptism b Ephes 5.26 so neither is the bread of the Lords Supper the very body of Christ c 1 Cor. 10.16 11.26 although according to the manner of Sacraments and that forme of speaking of them which is usuall to the holy Ghost d Gen. 17.10 11. Exod. 12.11 13. 13.9 Titus 3.5 1 Pet. 3.21 1 Corinth 10.4 the bread is called the body of Christ The Explication THe Papists Transubstantiation under which also Consubstantiation maintained by the Ubiquitaries and others is comprehended is in this Question of the Catechisme consuted and rejected and the sacramentall kind of speech which we use with the true sense of those words of Christ This is my body examined and unfolded We will first intreat of that forme of speech which we use and of the true meaning of Christs words then will wee handle the controversie of Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation That therefore which hath been heretofore spoken in generall of sacramentall phrases and termes must be restrained to this Sacrament For thus Austine himself descendeth from the generall rule of sacramentall termes unto a particular instance of eating Christs flesh Eâ—ist 23. ad Bonifâ—â— This saith he is the only way to find whether a phrase be proper or figurative That whatsoever in Gods word cannot properly be referred to some point of morall duty or to the truth of faith you may be assured that it is figuratively spoken And a little after hee produceth this example Except yee eate the flesh of the Sonne of man and drink his bloud yee have no life in you Hee seemeth saith Augustine by these words to injoyne us some hainous crime It is therefore a figurative speech instructing us that wee are to partake of Christs passion and joyfully and fruitfully to recall to mind how his flesh was crucified and wounded for us Wherefore as of Baptisme as hath been already declared so of the Lords Supper also the Scripture speaketh sometimes properly and sometimes figuratively The speech is figurative when Christ saith of the bread This is my body and of the cup This is my bloud Likewise when Paul saith This cup is the new Testament in my bloud For in these the name of the thing signified is attributed to the signe Paul also then speaketh figuratively when he saith This is my body which is broken for you because he attributeth the property of the signe which is to be broken to the thing signified Thus Cyprian must be understood When we drink of the cup we cleave to the crosse Serm. de Coena Hom 24. in 1 Cor. 10. Hom. 27. wee suck Christs bloud and lay our tongues in our Redeemers wounds Thus Chrysostome is to be interpreted when he saith Christs bloud is in the chalice Christs body which is in heaven is presented on earth to our view and is not only seen but touched of us nor touched only but eaten also he is held bitten and eaten of us in token of love as sometimes wee bite at him whom we love and touch his flesh with our tongue These sentences are not truly spoken or understood of the body of Christ but by a trope and figure usuall in sacraments Now the speech is proper when Christ saith Doe this in remembrance of me and when the Fathers every where say The breaking of bread is a memoriall a lively shadow of Christs sacrifice The bread signifieth the body of Christ It is a figure a signe a sacrament of the body of Christ Of the controversie concerning the words used in the Supper NOw whereas our adversaries the Papists and others deny that Christs words are sacramentally spoken and say we are to keep the letter wee must here adde something touching the controversie of the letter and meaning of the letter The Papists bear us in hand that by the vertue and force of consecration there is made a transubstantiation or changing of the bread into the body of Christ the accidents only remaining Others tell us of a consubstantiation or co-existence of Christs body in or with the bread The Transubstantiaries The Transubstantiaries and Consubstantiaries relie not on the simple meaning of Christs words together with the Consubstantiaries doe boast and glory that they understand the words of Christ simply and aright But neither perform that which they brag and boast of for that is the true simplicity and property of the word whereunto for the just understanding and interpretation thereof nothing is to be added neither ought to be taken from it neither any thing altered But as many as hold that the body of Christ
bread and much lesse when both of them say My invisible body contained under this form or under this bread is my body For both of them do not only manifestly decline from the letter to a glosse of their own but shamefully pervert Christs words in the former glosse as if it were written My body is under this and in the later they father on Christ a childish tautologie or repetition of the same thing as if he had said My body is my body Which was given for you 5. Christs body which we eat in the Supper was delivered to death and crucified for us But bread was not given and crucified for us Therefore bread is not properly and really the body of Christ This cup is the new Testament 6. As the cup is the new Testament so the bread is the body of Christ The cup is the new Testament sacramentally as before hath been shewed and now may be farther proved by this reason The new Testament properly is not drunk with the mouth but beleeved with the heart but the cup is drunk with the mouth therefore the cup cannot properly be the new Testament Therefore the bread is Christs body in the same sense to wit sacramentally 7. If the bread be properly Christs body and the cup his bloud it must needs be that in the first Supper the bloud was separated from Christs body and that now both of them be given us apart as they are signes apart But neither in the first Supper was the bloud then without the body neither is the body now given without bloud for then Christ was not yet dead and now he dieth no more Therefore the bread is the body and the cup the bloud of Christ not properly but sacramentally 8. That which Christ himself did eat and drink was not properly his body and bloud else should hee have eaten and drunken himselfe But hee did eat of that bread and drink of that cup for he saith I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine Mark 14.25 and Chrysostome commenting hereon saith Hee also drank of the cup Hom. 83. in Mark. lest hearing those words they should say What Doe wee then drink bloud and eat flesh and so be troubled For when hee first made mention of this kind of eating and drinking many took offence for the words sake onely Therefore lest this should then also happen hee himselfe first did eat and drinke that so hee might lead them with a quiet reposed mind to the communion of the mysteries The bread therefore and the cup are not properly Christs body and bloud but sacramentally Doe this in remembrance of mee 9. Remembrance is not of things corporally present but of things absent Christ instituted this sacrament to be celebrated in remembrance of him Therefore Christ is not corporally present in the bread or sacrament Doe this 10. Either Christ with his body is not substantially in the bread or forme of bread or the Supper is not to be any more celebrated For the Apostle biddeth us eat of this bread and drink of this cup and shew forth the Lords death till he come But questionlesse the celebration of the Supper is not yet to be intermitted but ought to be continued unto the end of the world Christ therefore is not yet come neither is he corporally in the bread or form of bread 11. As the bread was the body of Christ in the first Supper and the disciples did eat Christs body so and no otherwise the bread is now Christs body and wee eat Christs body for our Supper is no other then the Supper of the disciples was But in the first Supper the bread was not essentially Christs body neither did the disciples eat Christs body with their mouthes in the bread or in the form of bread for Christ corporally and visibly sate at the table with his disciples and suffered no change the whole action throughout Therefore now also the bread is not essentially Christs body neither do we eat Christs body with our mouthes in the bread or in the form of bread 2. The second sort of arguments which are taken from the nature of the Sacraments 1. THe very manner and form of speaking yeeldeth us a firm and strong argument Bread is the body of Christ But bread is not in his own proper substance his body for by reason hereof have they invented Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation Therefore it is a figurative speech even such a one as is usuall unto sacraments and is afore declared in the institution of the Supper 2. In all sacraments when the name or properties of the things signified are attributed unto the signes there is not signified the corporall presence of the thing in the signes but first a similitude of the things with their signes and a sealing of them by their signes then a conjunction and union of the things with their signes in the right use But in this Sacrament Christ attributeth the names of the things signified his body and bloud to the signes the bread and wine saying This is my body This is my bloud Therefore there is not thereby signified a corporall presence of his body 3. The nature of all sacraments is that the signs be understood and taken corporally that the things signified must be understood and taken spiritually and that the visible things be not the things signified but only signes and pledges of them 4. Sacramentall phrases and termes are sacramentally to be understood These words of the Supper This is my body This is my bloud are sacramentall phrases for they signifie the Sacrament and attribute the names of the things signified to the signes Therefore they are to be understood sacramentally Object There is no figurative speech expressed in the words of the Supper Therefore wee may not so interpret them Answ The Antecedent is false for Christ himselfe adjoined a sacramentall declaration immediately on them saying Doe this that is eat this bread and drink this cup in remembrance of me that is that therby ye may be certified and assured that my body was given and my bloud was shed for you and given to you to be meat and drink unto life eternall Again This cup is the new Testament in my bloud that is the seale of the new Testament and promise of grace now fulfilled in my bloud 5. Whatsoever is not promised in the Gospel that cannot be sealed unto us by the Supper for sacraments confirm exhibite promise seal no other thing then the word doth whence they are termed visible promises and visible words In the Gospel is promised no corporall eating Joh. 6.62 63. nay it is peremptorily reproved and condemned by Christ in the Gospel by two arguments 1. Because not long after hee would exalt his body into heaven and remove it far from the Jews mouthes 2. Because the corporall eating of his flesh profiteth nothing Neither doth he there distinguish the eating of him into a grosse and a
in the place of bread The Minor That he is not to be adored in the Supper is easily proved because in the New Testament since Christs ascension it hath not been nor is lawfull to tie and binde invocation to any certaine place or thing without the expresse command and permission of God except we will commit open Idolatry For all adoration bound and restrained to any certaine place or thing on earth is abrogated and cancelled by Christ The houre cometh John 4 21 22 23 24. when ye shall neither in this mountaine nor in Jerusalem worship the Father Ye worship that which ye know not we worship that which we know for salvation is of the Jews But the houre commeth and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth For the Father requireth even such to worship him God is a Spirit and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth Againe if Christ be so to be adored and worshipped in the Supper by our minds and motions of body converted unto the bread that whole oblation and sacrifice should consist in the hands of sacrificing Masse-Priests because they offer the Sonne unto the Father to obtaine remission of sinnes and so were his crucifying to be re-iterated Object Christ commanded not himselfe to be offered or adored but to be eaten Therefore we establish not the Papists offering up of Christ to his Father or their worshipping of him in the bread by that corporall presence which we uphold Ans This their reasoning is two waies faulty First they begge that which is in question whilest they say that Christ commanded us to eate him in the bread for this is no where found in Scripture 2. They shift and seeke to slide from the question in averring that Christ commanded not himselfe to be adored for we have a generall precept of adoring Christ in these words Psal 45.13 Psal 97.7 Heb. 1.6 He is the Lord thy God and thou shalt worship him And let all the Angels of God worship him This generall precept without any speciall exception or expectation of any particular injunction should no lesse binde us all unto obedience and to the adoring of Christ in the bread if we had any evident proofe of his invisible existence therein than if we beheld him present with our eyes Thus Thomas expecteth not some speciall expresse warrant but doth well in worshipping towards the place where he seeth Christ standing saying My Lord and my God Wherefore John 20.28 as long as the opinion of corporall presence standeth so long the Papists idolatrous adoration and oblation and their whole Masse must needs stand also For the Papists themselves will not have that we understand their offering of Christ in the Masse of any slaughtering or murthering him but only of a publique shewing him being there corporally present and of a craving and obtaining remission of sinnes for his sake whom the Priests beare in their hands and present unto God the Father 4. The fourth sort of Arguments drawne from like places of Scripture where namely the samething is delivered in words whereof there is no controversie 1. LIke phrases have a like sense and interpretation But all these phrases are accounted for like namely for sacramentall formes of speech wherein the names or proper effects of the things signified are attributed to the signe as Circumcision is the Govenant of God The Lamb is the Passeover of the Lord. Gen. 17.10 11. Exod. 12.11 31.16 Levit. 1.4 Exod. 24.18 Exod. 26.34 1 Cor. 10.3 Marke 2.26 Luke 22.20 Acts 22.16 Titus 3.5 1 Pet. 3.21 Gen. 17.11 Exod. 12.13 14. 13.9 31 17. The Sabbath is the Covenant of the Lord. The Leviticall sacrifices are an expiation or doing away of sinne The bloud of sacrifices is the bloud of the Covenant The covering of the Arke is the mercy seate The Rock was Christ The bread is the body of Christ The cup is the New Testament Baptisme washeth away sinne Baptisme is the washing of the new birth Baptisme saveth us c. Therefore their interpretation is alike Now God himselfe interpreteth some of them thus Circumcision is a signe of the Covenant The Lamb is a signe and memoriall of the Passeover The Sabbath is a signe of the Covenant Therefore we may justly interpret the rest on the same manner The Leviticall sacrifices signifie the attonement for sinnes made by the Messias The bloud of sacrifices is a Sacrament or signe confirming the Covenant or a signe of Christs bloud whereby the Covenant was established The covering of the Arke signifieth the Mercy-seate The Rock signifieth Christ The bread is a Sacrament of the body of Christ The cup is a Sacrament sealing the new Covenant Baptisme is a Sacrament of the washing away of sins and of our regeneration and salvation 2. As the cup is the New Testament so is the bloud of Christ the New Testament The cup is the New Testament Sacramentally that is it is a signe of the New Testament Therefore Christs bloud is a signe of the New Testament The Major is apparent because without doubt the words of Luke and Paul This cup is the New Testament in my bloud and the words of Matthew and Marke This is my bloud of the New Testament have all one meaning The Minor is proved before in the first argument and cannot be taken otherwise For the New Testament is no externall thing or ceremony but a free reconciliation with God promised in the Gospel through the bloud and death of Christ The cup then is either the thing promised or the seale of the promise but it is not the promise nor the thing promised Therefore it is the seale of the promise 3. The bread which we breake saith the Apostle is it not the communion of the body of Christ As bread is the communion of the body of Christ so also it is the body of Christ The reason is cleere because Pauls words and Christs have both one meaning seeing Paul interpreteth Christ But the bread is the communion of the body of Christ sacramentally that is it is a Sacrament or signe of our spirituall communion with Christs body For properly and literally bread cannot be termed a communion Therefore bread also is Christs body sacramentally that is it is a Sacrament or signe of Christs body Now that the communion or communication of Christs body is spirituall is thus proved 1. Paul speaketh of such a communion as whereby we being many are made one bread one body But we being many are one body spiritually Therefore the communion mentioned of Paul is spirituall 2. The communion of Christ whereof he speaketh cannot stand with the communion of Divels 1 Cor. 10.21 Ye cannot saith he drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of the Divels ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and of the table of the Divels The argument is not deduced from an inconvenience or an undecency as some
substance in generall as they use to speak without quantity or quality contained under those accidents so that it demonstrateth unto us neither bread nor Christs body but only something contained under the formes and accidents which before Consecration was bread but by vigour and force of the words of Consecration began to be the body of Christ so that the meaning is on this wise This is my body that is Their vaine questions where the Accidents in Transsubstantiation may be grounded that which is contained under this or these formes is my body Touching the accidents where they are grounded and seated whether in the body of Christ or in the aire or in the surface of the bread and wine or in nothing they curiously and diversely dispute and the common received opinion is that they are existent without any subject This is the doctrine of the Schoole-men and all Papists whereof as we see there are two maine heads one of Transsubstantiation another of eating Christs body with the mouth But each of them is a false profane forgery utterly repugnant with the words of Christ As for the later of these it is overthrown and refuted by the same arguments whereby we have already proved the spirituall eating of Christs body and Transsubstantiation is thus oppugned 1. That which is Christs body in the Supper remaineth and is not therein transformed nor reduced to nothing else Christs body should not remaine Arguments against Transsubstantiation nor be present in the Eucharist But in the bread is Christs body namely sacramentally as before we have made evident demonstrance Therefore bread remaineth in the Supper and is not transformed or reduced to nothing The Minor is already proved and is confirmed Proofes that the bread in the Sacrament is Christs body 1. By the authority of Luke and Paul in these words This cup is the new testament and The bread is the communion of the body of Christ. 2. Farther proofes are deduced also out of these words thus What Christ brake that he called his body But he brake bread not some uncertaine substance nor the meere accidents of the bread Therefore the bread is the body of Christ Againe The Article THIS demonstrateth and pointeth out either the bread or the meere accidents or the body of Christ or some determinate thing or substance whatsoever But it concerneth not any indeterminate substance Because Christ brake not any undeterminate thing that is I know not what but determinately and precisely it is said He brake bread it concerneth not Christs visible or invisible body for his visible body sate and talked with his Disciples and an invisible body Christ never had and moreover the Papists themselves confesse that Christs body is not yet present under the forme of bread when the Priest beginneth to pronounce the particle THIS but then when once the change is made the change say they is made in the last instant of consecration at the pronouncing of this last syllable DY in these words This is my boDY Lastly it concerneth not the accidents onely of the bread For Christ brake not bare and meere accidents Wherefore the Article THIS intimateth nothing else but the bread and Christs words This is my body have no other meaning then this This bread is my body 2. Christ brake bread but he did not then break his body therefore the bread is not really his body 3. Christs body was given for us The bread was not given for us Therefore the bread is not really Christs body 4. Christ saith not as the Transsubstantiaries say Vnder these formes is my body or My body is contained under these formes Therefore the Transsubstantiaries retaine not but pervert Christs words 5. Christ said not Let this be made but This is my body Therefore Christs words turne not the bread into the substance of his body but they teach onely that the bread in this use is Christs body to wit sacramentally 6. Paul expresly calleth that which is taken bread both before and after the eating Therefore the bread is not reduced to nothing nor changed into the substance of Christs body but continueth bread 7. Two things there are in every Sacrament the signe and the thing signed or as Irenaeus speaketh the earthly and the heavenly thing and without these two no Sacrament can consist or stand But Transsubstantiation taketh away the signe or earthly thing namely bread and wine from the Eucharist Therefore it taketh away the whole fence or nature of a Sacrament 8. A bare imagination of bread and wine cannot confirme the faith of heavenly things but will mock and deceive it as being a vaine thing and not that which it seemeth But the signe in the Lords Supper must confirme the faith of heavenly things to wit that we are as certainly fed with the body and bloud of our Lord as we are sure we receive the bread and wine For Sacraments were instituted to confirme faith by visible signes Farewell Transsubstantiation which transformeth the signe into a shadow and imagination 9. Transsubstantiation taketh away the analogie or proportion of the signe and the thing signed Eâ—st ad Bonifac. whereof Saint Augustine saith that The body so feedeth the soule as the bread nourisheth the body and as corn bread is one masse made of many grains so many are made one bread and one body which partake of one bread For the bare accidents of bread and wine cannot uphold and beare this Analogie seeing they nourish not neither can you say As the accidents of the bread and wine nourish the body to the maintenance of this life so Christs body nourisheth my soule to life eternall for then the comparison will be betweene a true and a false thing wherefore the very Analogie of the signe and the thing doe sufficiently refute Transsubstantiation Of Consubstantiation THe Papists feigned that two great miracles were wrought in the Eucharist by the vertue of Consecration namely the changing of the substances of bread and the Lords body and the subsisting of Accidents without any subject of which two the former subverteth the Analogie of the whole Christian faith the later contradicteth all sound Philosophy And that force of Consecration they boast of is nothing else but a magicall device of the Devill What Consubstantiation is and an invention of mans brain This when of ancient some Doctors espied to avoid these so absurd miracles in stead of Transsubstantiation they coined Consubstantiation that is The co-existence of two substances in one place or the presence of Christs body and bloud not under the formes of bread and wine but under the bread and wine it selfe These therefore were of opinion that the signs were not transsubstantiated that is changed not their substance but consubstantiated that is that the bread and wine remained but with in and under the bread and wine Christs body and bloud were really and substantially present and eaten and drunken with the month of the Receivers
grounds of Consubstantiation 1. The Vbiquity 2. The words of Christ. The Ubiquity hath beene at large discoursed of before in expounding the Articles of the personall union of the two natures in Christ of his ascension into heaven and of his sitting at the right hands of God the Father and the difficulties therein discussed fully resolved and Ubiquity it selfe confuted Christs words witnesse the Papists themselves neither intimate Consubstantiation neither can beare that interpretation Which the Ubiquitaries also in their writings dissemble not and have therefore devised and invented the Ubiquity because they saw that the ground and foundation of their opinion if it were laid on Christs words only were too ruinous and like to have a speedy down-fall Christ said This is my body which is given for you which words the Consubstantials retaine not Consubstantiation over browne by Christs very words neither literally nor according to their sense and meaning We need not therefore any argument to refute Consubstantiation but Christs very words whereunto we recall them and thus reason against them Christ said not In this bread is my body but This is my body neither is the sense of both these propositions all one seeing the former declareth what is in the bread and where Christs body is the later what the bread it selfe is in the Eucharist Therefore the Consubstantials who teach that in the bread is Christs body retaine neither the letter nor the meaning of Christs words A refutation of objections framed to confirme Consubstantiation Schmidline his argument in the conference at Mulbr Laâ— Pag. 159. OBject 1. It is an usuall kind of speech when two things are joyntly given the one apparent the other in covert that that onely be named which appeared not as we say of purses fraught with money This is money of a caske of wine This is wine But Christ in his Supper delivering in the same manner two things joyntly at once namely the bread and his body named that onely which appeared not under the bread saying Take this is my body Therefore Christs manner of speech is most usuall and proper neither needeth it any explication at all Answ To the Major we answer that it is a forme of speech most usuall c. but with this limitation when it is certaine that the thing which is named though it be not apparent yet it is contained in that thing which is apparent as it is certaine that money is in the purse and wine in the caske Otherwise it is no usuall plaine or true forme of speech to say of an empty purse This is money But hitherto it is not cleere neither have the Consubstantials as yet proved that Christs body lay hid in the bread when Christ said thereof This is my body as it ought to be evident that money is in the purse and wine in the vessell when it is said This is money This is wine Yea and we avouch the contrary to wit that Christs body in the first Supper lay not hid in the bread but sate at table and now is in heaven untill it thence returne in judgement Therefore this forme of reasoning is a begging of that which is in controversie betwixt us Answ 2. The Minor also is false For Christ delivering unto his Disciples not his body but bread taken from the table and broken said Take cate This that is this bread is my body Which exposition is proved 1. Because it is said of the cup This cup is the New Testament 2. Paul expoundeth the particle This of the bread saying The bread which we break is the communion of Christs body 3. Because the bread and body of Christ both together are neither properly not figuratively Christs very body and hereby a Tautologie or a vaine and childish iteration of the same thing should be fathered on Christ in saying My body is my body 4. We deny also the consequence because their conclusion compriseth more then their premisses in force For they conclude that it is a most usuall and proper speech But these two usuall and proper are not in force and signification alike For the most usuall form of speech may be figurative as those very triviall and yet Synecdochicall speeches urged by them This is money This is wine who is so mad as to think the purse alone or the purse with the mony is properly money So was that Sacramentall speech of the Passeover frequent and well knowne unto the Disciples of Christ Where wilt thou that we provide the Passeover Yet spake they not properly but figuratively attributing to the signe the name of the thing signified by a sacramentall Metonymie or change of names That which followeth therefore out of the premisses is only this That Christs words were triviall plaine and known to the Disciples but not that they were understood properly literally and without all Trope or Figure Object 2. Christ said This is my body But Christ is true Therefore we must beleeve him setting apart all Philosophicall subtilty and sharpnesse and so by consequent bread is not a signe of his body but his body as the words lie which are simply and literally to be understood Ans Here they alledge us that for a cause which is indeed no cause of the matter in hand For Christs truth is a cause onely that his words are true yea most true to which we ought to give credence setting apart all Philosophicall subtilty but it is no cause why his words should be proper and literally taken For he which speaketh figuratively may also speak truly as Christ him selfe was no lesse true yea truth it selfe when he said I am the light of the world the doore of the sheepfold the good Shepheard the true Vine my Father is an Husbandman ye are the branches then when he said This is my body And they deserve to be hissed out of Schooles who presume to terme figurative speeches by the name of lies 2. We retort their Minor thus Christ is true Therefore he said not that his body lay hid in the bread when all his Disciples saw that it sate at Table 3. We retort their conclusion on them thus Christs words must be understood simply Therefore yee may not cloake and colour them with your glosse which perverteth the letter when ye say that In With Vnder the bread is Christs body or that the bread is the closet of Christs body Object 3. Christ is omnipotent Therefore he can effect that his body should be really in the bread Ans The reason is of no force which will conclude a thing to be done because it may be done The question is not What Christ can doe but what he will He no where promised the presence of his body in the bread or in the presence of the bread Therefore we derogate nothing at all from his omnipotency when we beleeve no such presence Repl. Bread is present in place of the Supper Bread is Christs body Therefore Christs body is present in
is fed with Christs body eateth it and is false being universally proposed For doth thy thigh or thine elbow therefore eate because it is nourished by the meat which thou conveyest in by thy mouth It sufficeth that eating is by the mouth as an instrument framed by nature to this end to minister nourishment to the whole body So it is not necessary that our bodies should eate Christs body with their mouches therewith to be fed unto eternall life but it sufficeth that the mouth of faith taketh the spirituall meate that spirituall nourishment and life may be transfused throughout the whole man Quest 79. Why then doth Christ call bread his body and the cup his bloud or the New Testament in his bloud and Paul also calleth bread and wine the communion of the body and bloud of Christ Ans Christ not without great consideration speaketh so to wit not only for to teach us that as the bread and wine sustaine the life of the body so also his crucified body and bloud shed are indeed the meat and drink of our soule whereby it is nourished to eternall life a John 6.55 But much more that by this visible signe and pledge he may assure us that we are as verily partakers of his body and bloud through the working of the holy Ghost as we doe receive by the mouth of our body these holy signes in remembrance of him b 1 Cor. 10.16 And further also that that his suffering and obedience is so certainly ours as though we our selves had suffered punishments for our sins and had satisfied God The Explication WHereas neither Transubstantiation nor Consubstantiation are signified by Christs words the question is Why the bread is called Christs body and the cup Christs bloud that is why the things signified are attributed to the signes and the signes called by their name There are two causes alledged hereof 1. For the naturall analogy or likenesse Two causes why the things signified are attributed unto the signes which Christs body and the bread have between themselves 2. For the certainty or confirmation of the joynt-exhibition of the signe and the thing signified in the true use The similitude and proportion of the bread and Christs body especially consisteth in these points 1. As the Bread and Wine nourish our body unto this life so the Body and Bloud of Christ nourish us unto everlasting life 2. As the Bread and Wine are received by the mouth The Analogy or proportion between the bread and Christs body in the use of the Supper so Christs body and bloud are received by faith which is the mouth of the soule 3. As the bread is not swallowed whole but eaten being broken so Christs body is received being sacrificed and broken on the Crosse 4. As the bread and wine profiteth not him that eateth without appetite but we must bring hunger and thirst unto the Table so Christs body and bloud profit none but them who hunger and thirst after righteousnesse 5. As of many corns is made one loaf and of many grapes one wine so we by participation or communion of these signes though many yet are made one body and grow up into one body with Christ and between our selves The certainty also or assurance of faith is a cause why we affirme that of the signes which is proper to the thing signified For the signes testifie that Christs sacrifice is accomplished and that indeed for our behoofe and salvation as verily as we have the signes yea that we are fed with Christs crucified body and bloud shed and poured out as truly as we receive these sacred symboles of his body and bloud ON THE 30. SABBATH Quest 70. What difference is there between the Lords Supper and the Popish Masse Ans The Supper of the Lord testifieth to us that we have perfect forgivenes of all our sins for that only sacrifice of Christ which himselfe once fully wrought on the Crosse a Heb. 10.10 12. 7.27 9.12 25. John 19.30 Matth. 26.28 Luke 22.19 Then also that we by the holy Ghost are graffed into Christ b 1 Cor. 6.17 10.16 12.13 who now according to his humane nature is only in heaven at the right hand of his Father c Colos 3.1 Heb. 1.3 8.1 and there will be worshipped of us d Mat. 6.20 21. John 4.21 22. 20 17. Luke 24.52 Acts 7.55 Col. 3.1 Phil. 3.20 1 Thes 1.19 But in the Masse it is denied that the quick and the dead have remission of sins for the only passion of Christ except also Christ be daily offered of them by their sacrificers Further also it is taught that Christ is bodily under the formes of bread and wine and therefore is to be worshipped in them e In Canone Missae de consec dist 2. Concil Trid. Sess 13.5 And so the very foundation of the Masse is nothing else then an utter deniall of that only sacrifice and passion of Christ Jesus and an accursed Idolatry f Heb. 9.26 10.12 The Explication THis question is necessary by reason of errours which by the Masse have crept into the Church It is otherwise demanded Why the Masse is to be abolished But here this question is also contained and comprehended because these differences and contrarieties of the Lords Supper and the Masse are the causes why the Masse is to be abolished For whereas it hath so many abuses in it flat repugnant to the Lords Supper it may not be confounded therewith nor be thrust on the Church in place thereof nor be permitted and tolerated in the Church by godly and religious Magistrates but it ought to be utterly abandoned and put downe First then let us speak a few words of the name of Masse or Missa The word Missa seemeth to have his name derived from the Hebrew Masah that is a tribute or voluntary offering which was wont to be paid of every one The originall of the word Missa which we call the Masse The word is found Deut. 16.10 Missach nidbath jadecha a free gift of thine hand Now that offering was called so being as it were an yeerly tribute which was yet no exaction but given freely Others interprete it to be a sufficiency which is that there should be given so much as was sufficient and perhaps this is the truer because the Lord commanded the Israelites that they should open their hands unto the poore Deut. 15. â— and should lend him sufficient for his need This the Chaldee Paraphrast interpreteth to be Missah Hereof these our men think that it was called Missa as if it were a tribute and free-offering which should be every-where offered to God in the Church for the living and the dead But this is not of any likelihood to be true It is manifest indeed that the Church hath borrowed some words from the Hebrewes as Satan Osanna Sabaot Halleluja Pascha and such like But those words came
not to the Latine Church but by the Greeke Church and those words are found in the Greeke Testament when first it was written in Greeke And therefore wee have no Hebrew words derived unto our Church which the Greeke Church had not before us If also wee seek the Greeke Fathers the word Missa will never be found to have been used by them Therefore I think not that the word Missa was taken from the Hebrewes but Missa which doubtlesse is a Latine word by originall seemeth to have taken from the Fathers who used Remissa for Remissio as Tertullian Tertul. lib. 4. cont Marc. Cypr. debono patient Epist 4. lib. 3. Wee have spoken saith hee of a De remissa peccatorum remissio of sinnes And Cyprian Hee that was to give b Daturus remissam peccatorum remission of sins did not disdaine to be baptised And again he useth the same word Hee that blasphemeth against the holy Ghost hath not c Remissam peccatorum non habet remission of sins Wherefore as they say Remissa for Remissio so they seem also to have said Missa for Missio But herein againe they much vary For some will have the word Missa to be used as it were Missio from an ancient custome of Ecclesiasticall rites and actions which came from the Greeke Churches to the Latine because Sermons and Lectures being ended before the Communion a Deacon did send forth that is did command the Catechumenes the possested with spirits and the excommunicated persons to depart crying with a loud voice If any Catechumene be yet abiding within the Church let him depart and so the word Missa seemeth to be used as it were a Mission or sending away because it was the last part of divine Service Others will have it to be so called from a Dimission or from the manner of dimissing the congregation because Service being ended a Deacon dimissed them with these words Ite missa est that is Goe you may depart Or as others interprete it Go now is the collection of almes which they will have to be called Missa of the sending it in as we may so speake or throwing or casting it in for the poore Lombard hath a new conceit hereof Lib. 4. dist 15. It is called the Masse saith hee because an heavenly Messenger cometh to consecrate Christs quickning body according to that prayer of the Priest Almighty God command that this be carried by the hands of thine Angell into thine high Altar c. Therefore unlesse an Angell come it cannot rightly be called a Masse Loe the folly of the man Againe The Masse is so called either because the host is sent whereof mention is made in that Service whence it is said Ite missa est that is Follow the host Lib. 4. dist 24. which is sent up to heaven trace yee after it Or because an Angel cometh from heaven to consecrate the Lords body by whom the host is carried and conveyed to the heavenly Altar Whence it is also said Ite missa est Goe it is sent Wee reject both the name and the thing For this word the Masse doth not agree to the Lords Supper because the Lords Supper hath nothing common and agreeing with the name of Missa albeit it was used of the ancient Writers Moreover we have no need of this name for wee have other words for this purpose extant in Scripture where it is called The Lords Supper The Lords Table Breaking of bread c. Now let us see the differences of the Supper and the Masse and those most contrary one to another and such as in respect whereof the Masse ought to be abolished They are especially three and are desciphered in the Catechisme 1. The Lords Supper testifieth unto us That wee have full remission of sinnes and justification freely by faith for Christs one and onely sacrifice finished on the Crosse according to these sayings of Scripture The bread is the body of Christ given for us Heb. 7.27 Heb. 9.12 26. The cup is the bloud of Christ shed for us for remission of sinnes Doe this in remembrance of mee Shew forth the Lords death till hee come That did hee once when hee offered up himselfe By his owne bloud entred hee in once into the holy place and obtained eternall redemption for us For then must hee have often suffered since the foundation of the world but now in the end of the world hath hee appeared once to put away sinne by the sacrifice of himselfe Heb. 10.10 12 14. By the which will wee are sanctified even by the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once made This man after hee had offered one sacrifice for sinnes sitteth for ever at the right hand of God With one offering hath hee consecrated for ever them that are sanctified Contrariwise the Masse denieth that both quicke and dead have remission of sins by and for Christs oblation except also he be daily offered by the Massing-Priests to God his Father For thus hath that their Canon which they call the lesse Holy Father Almighty and Eternall God receive this immaculate host or sacrifice which I thy unworthy servant offer to thee my living and true God for my innumerable sinnes offences and negligences and for all that stand about me here present yea and for all faithfull Christians quick and dead that it may be profitable to me and them to everlasting salvation And their greater Canon hath Remember Lord thy servants and handmaids N. and all here present whose faith and devotion is well knowne unto thee for whom we offer or who offer unto thee this sacrifice of praise for themselves and all that are theirs for the redemption of their soules for the hope of their safety and salvation What need was there that Christ should offer himselfe at all if the oblation of a petty Masse-Priest may serve for the redemption of soules 2. The Lords Supper witnesseth unto us That Christ according to the Articles of faith as concerning his humanity is in heaven at the right hand of his Father and is not shrouded under the bare accidents of the elements or signes in the Supper and that he exhibiteth unto us in the Supper his body and bloud to be eaten and drunken by faith and that he ingraffeth us into himselfe by his holy Spirit that we may abide in him and have him abiding in us as it is said He that is joyned unto the Lord 2 Cor. 6.17 10.16 Heb. 1.3 8.1 4. is one spirit The bread which we breake is it not the communion of the body of Christ We have such an high-Priest that sitteth at the right hand of the Throne of the Majesty in the heavens For he were not a Priest if he were on earth Contrariwise the Masse teacheth us That bread and wine by force of consecration is changed into Christs body and blood and that this his body and bloud in the act of consecration
him 8. Now when Christ saith This that is This bread is my body and This cup is my bloud the speech is sacramentall or metonymicall because the name of the thing signified is attributed to the signe it self that is it is meant that the bread it the sacrament or signe of his body and doth represent him and doth testifie that Christs body is offered for us on the crosse and is given to us to be food of eternall life and therefore is the instrument of the holy Ghost to maintain and increase this food in us 1 Cor. 10. as S. Paul saith The bread is the communion of the body of Christ that is it is that thing by which we are made partakers of Christs body And else-where he saith We have been all made to drink into one Spirit The same is the meaning also when it is said that the bread is called Christs body for a similitude which the thing signified hath with the signe namely that Christs body nourisheth the spirituall life as bread doth the corporall life and for that assured and certain joint-receiving of the thing and the signe in the right use of the sacrament And this is the sacramentall union of the bread which is shewed by a sacramentall kind of speaking but no such locall conjunction as is by some imagined 9. As therefore the body of Christ signifieth both his proper and naturall body and his sacramentall body which is the bread of the Eucharist so the eating of Christs body is of two sorts one sacramentall of the signe to wit the externall and corporall receiving of the bread and wine the other reall or spirituall which is the receiving of Christs very body it self And to beleeve in Christ dwelling in us by faith is by the vertue and operation of the holy Ghost to be ingraffed into his body as members to the head and branches into the vine and so to be made partakers of the fruit of the death and life of Christ Whence it is apparent that they are falsly accused who thus teach as if they made either the bare signes only to be in the Lords Supper or a participation of Christs death only or of his benefâ—â—s or of the holy Ghost excluding the true reall and spirituall communion of the very body of Christ it self 10. Now the right use of the Supper is when the faithfull observe this rite instituted by Christ in remembrance of Christ that is to the stirring and raising up of their faith and thankfulnesse 11. As in this right use the body of Christ is sacramentally taken so also without this use as by unbeleevers and hypocrites it is eaten sacramentally indeed but not really that is the sacramentall symboles or signes bread and wine are received but not the things themselves of the sacrament to wit the body and bloud of Christ 12. This doctrine of the Supper of the Lord is grounded upon very many and those most sound and firm reasons All those places of Scripture confirm it which speak of the Lords Supper and Christ calling not any invisible thing in the bread but the very visible and broken bread it selfe his body delivered or broken for us which whereas it cannot be meant properly himselfe addeth an exposition that that bread is truly received in remembrance of him which is as if he had said That the bread is a sacrament of his body So likewise he saith The Supper is the new testament which is spirituall one and everlasting And Paul saith It is the communion of the body and bloud of Christ because all the faithfull are one body in Christ who cannot stand together with the communion of the divels Likewise he maketh one and the same ingraffing into Christs body by one spirit to be both in baptism and in the Lords supper Moreover the whole doctrine and nature of Sacraments confirm the same all which represent to the eyes the same spirituall communion of Christ to be received by faith which the word or promise of the Gospel declareth unto the ears Therefore they are called by the names of the things signified and in their right use have the receiving of the things adjoined unto them The articles also of our faith confirm it which teach that Christs body is a true humane body not present at once in many places as being now received into heaven and there to remain untill the Lord return to Judgement and further that the communion of saints with Christ is wrought by the holy Ghost not by any entrance of Christs body into the bodies of men Wherefore this sentence and doctrine is of all the purer antiquity of the Church with most great and manifest consent held and professed 13. The Supper of the Lord differeth from Baptism 1. In the rite and manner of signifying because the dipping into the water or washing signifyeth a remission and purging out of sin by the bloud and spirit of Christ and our society and fellowship with Christ in his afflictions and glorification But the distributing of the bread and wine signifieth the death of Christ to be imputed unto us unto remission of sins and our selves ingraffed into Christ to become his members 2. They differ in their speciall use because Baptism is the testimony of our regeneration and of the covenant made between us and God and of our receiving into the Church But the Lords Supper testifieth that we are ever to be nourished by Christ remaining in us and that the covenant made between God and us shall ever be established and ratified unto us and that we for ever shall abide in the Church and body of Christ 3. They differ in the persons to whom they are to be given Baptism is given to all those who are to be accounted for members of the Church whether they be of yeers and understanding or infants The Lords Supper is to be given to them only who are able to understand and celebrate the benefits of Christ and to examine themselves 4. They differ in the often celebrating of them Baptism is to be received but once only because the covenant of God being once made is alwayes firm and of force to the penitent But the Supper is often to be received because an often renewing and recalling of that covenant to our remembrance is necessary for our faith 5. They differ in the order which is to be observed in the use of them Because Baptism is to be given before the Supper and the Supper may not be given unto any except he be first baptised 14. They come worthily to the Lords Supper who examine themselves that is are endued with true faith and repentance They who find not this in themselves ought neither to come without it lest they eat and drink their own judgement not to defer repentance wherewith they should come lest they draw upon themselves hardnesse of heart and eternall pains 15. The Church ought to admit all those unto it who professe themselves to imbrace the
whereas the gates might yeeld and open unto him as also that he passed thorow the door or stone of the grave when as it is said that the Angel did open it and lastly when they say that Christs body was once and together in moe places which they seem to have of Austin but Austin said That his body was in the grave his soul in hell and his God-head every where 3. They reason from a circumstance of the time the same night in which hee was betrayed No man which speaketh seriously speaketh figuratively Christ instituting his Supper spake seriously Therefore without any figure Ans I deny the Major because by that position no man that speaketh seriously should speak figuratively which is most false God speaketh in all Sacraments though figuratively yet seriously I have earnestly desired saith Christ to eat this Passeover with you Wherefore I answer that he useth not jesting or obscure figures This figure is perspicuous because it is usuall and his disciples speak so Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou maist eat the Passeover It is usuall also in all Sacraments it is forcible and emphaticall because it expresseth the similitude of the signe and the thing signified and the certainty of the conjunction of both in the right use and administration Again we invert their reason and say Because Christ spake seriously therefore he used a figure which doth well expresse and declare the thing Repl. Christ said This cup is the new testament In wils and testaments men speak properly Christ here instituteth a Sacrament Therefore hee speaketh properly Ans I deny the Major and invert the reason for seeing he would institute a Sacrament therefore he spake figuratively calling the Supper the new testament which is figuratively to be understood for these two reasons 1. Because otherwise there should be two covenants the one proper and the other the Supper 2. Otherwise also they should be shut out from Gods covenant who cannot come to the Supper and all who come to the Supper should be in the covenant Object Christ saith In my bloud Therefore the reall bloud of Christ is in the Supper and is drunk by the mouth Ans We conclude the contrary rather by those words of Christ because the new testament was made by Christs bloud shed on the crosse and applyed unto us by faith not drunk by the mouth for otherwise they should be excluded from the testament and covenant who were not able to come to the Sacrament Rep There is a great force in the word New That which was done in the Old Testament typically is done in the New really Ans If they adde Therefore done by the mouth of the body they bring in more in the conclusion then was in the antecedent for there was no type in the old Testament which did signifie the eating of Christ with the mouth 2. We invert their reason Christs body was no otherwise eaten in the new Testament then in the old But in the old it was eaten spiritually only Coâ— 2.17 Hebr. 9. Therefore in the new also it is so eaten Rep. The new Testament differeth from the old because in that were types in the new is the body it selfe Ans This difference of the old and new Testament is no where set down in holy Scripture that Christ is eaten in the old not really and in the new corporally by the mouth In the places which are alledged out of the Apostle the body signifieâ—h that the shadow was only of the old Testament and was accomplished and fulfilled by Christ because there the body is opposed to those shadows And further because he calleth it the body of Christ which kind of speech sheweth that by Christ was wrought accomplishment and fulfilling of the types and shadowes of the old Testament Moreover albeit we have Christ exhibited in the new Testament and he is there born a man yet notwithstanding it doth not therefore follow hereof that his body is in the bread but only that it is in the new Testament 4. They reason from the consent of the Evangelists and S. Paul Matthew as Theophylact calculateth writ his Gospel eight yeeres after Christs ascension Marke ten yeeres Luke fifteene yeeres Paul twenty yeers and all use the same words A speech that is often uttered with the same words is not figurative Such is the speech of the Lords Supper Therefore it is not figurative Ans It is false that a speech often uttered in the same words is not figurative because when a figure is conspicuous known and forcible as this it is retained Again The Evangelists repeat the words of Christ because he spake figuratively Often though it be figurative is this repeated Hee shall baptise you with the holy Ghost Matâ—h 3 1â— John 1.33 and with fire Moreover we deny that this speech of Christs Supper was repeated by all in the same words 1. Because Matthew and Mark say This is my bloud of the new Testament Luke saith This cup is the new Testament in my bloud 2. Matthew and Mark say This is my body Luke addeth which is given for you Paul which is broken for you 3. Paul saith That the bread is the communion of the body of Christ And albeit in this place hee speaketh not purposely of the Supper yet he stirreth up and exhorteth unto it Repl. It is the same sense and meaning Answ The question now is not of the sense and meaning of the words but of the identity of the words that is whether they be the same words Repl. Where there is no mention at all of any figure there is no figure Answ This is false For foolish were it and men should seem to make shew and ostentation of their skill and art if they should say that they used a trim figure And the Scripture also often speaketh figuratively and yet doth it not adde withall it speaketh figuratively Furthermore they make mention hereof when they shew that it consisteth of the nature of the subject and the attribute The body was born of the Virgin crucified and so forth The bread is made of meal Secondly Christ willeth this to be done in remembrance of him Therefore the bread is called the body as a memoriall of his body Thirdly Matthew and Mark say This is my bloud of the new Testament Paul and Luke say This is the new Testament in my bloud Now the new Testament is the bloud whereby God hath bound himself to receive the faithfull and repentant into favour and they bind themselves to yeeld faith and obedience unto him Fourthly Paul saith That the bread is the communion of Christs body which is not any corporall eating 1. Because the faithfull are thereby one body in Christ 2. Because he compareth it with the communion of the altar in the old Testament which was not corporall 3. Because it can agree but to the faithfull onely and not to the wicked 4. John sheweth that communion If we walk in
is the other Sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Christ by which he testifieth to us who receive the consecrated bread and wine with a faithfull remembrance of his death that he feeds us with his bodie which was given for us and with his bloud which was powred out for us and that hee quickneth d us that with him and amongst our selves we may grow up into one e bodie and that the covenant begun with God in Baptisme may remaine f ratified to us for ever Testimonies of Scripture a 1 Cor. 10.16 The cup of blessing which we blesse is it not the communion of the bloud of Christ the bread which we breake is it not the communion of the body of Christ b 1 Cor. 11.26 As often as you shall eat of this bread and drink of this cup you shall declare the Lords death untill he come c Matth. 26.26 Mark 14.22 Luke 22.17 1 Cor. 11.21 While they were eating he took bread and blessed and brake it then gave it to his disciples and said Take eat this is my body d John 6.54 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud hath life eternall and I will raise him up at the last day e John 6.56 Who eateth my flesh and drinketh my bloud he abideth in me and I in him 1 Cor. 10.17 Because there is one bread we being many are one bread and one body for we all partake of that one bread 1 Cor. 12.13 We have all drunk into one spirit f 1 Cor. 11.25 This cup is the New Testament in my bloud II. We say also that this Sacrament consisteth of externall signes and of the promises of grace in the word annexed to the a signes and consequently of a twofold food and a twofold eating or taking to wit an externall of bread and wine which is done by the mouth of the bodie out of the hand of the Minister as our sense witnesseth and an internall spirituall of Christs bodie and bloud which is by faith out of the hands of God himselfe and by the externall it is both signified exhibited and sealed in the lawfull use of the Sacrament as the promise annexed to the Symboles b witnesseth Testimonies of Scripture and of others a Apolog. August Confes tit De use Sacram. c. And because in the Sacraments there are two things to wit the signe and the word the word in the New Testament is the promise of grace added to the signe The promise of the New Testament is the promise of the remission of sins as this Text saith This is my body which is given for you This is the cup of the New Testament with my bloud which is shed for many to the remission of sins The word then offers remission of sins and the ceremony is as it were the pledge of the word or feale as Paul calls it shewing the promise b Matth. 26. c. III. For whereas all Sacraments are seales of grace promised in the a Gospel it is not to be doubted but these words of promise in the Supper This is my body which is given for you This is my bloud which is powred out for you c. are the very same Evangelicall promise in b John The bread which I will give you is my flesh which I will give you for the life of the world for my flesh is meat indeed and my bloud is drinke indeed being covered with the sacramentall ceremonie and confirmed with a symbolicall eating for the greater safetie or assurance but that it speaketh of the spirituall food of Christs bodie and bloud which is by faith is c manifest Testimonies of Scripture and of others a Rom. 4.11 And he received the signe of circumcision the seale of the justice of faith received in the fore-skin Apolog. August Confes tit De usu Sacram. c. The word in the New Testament is the promise of grace as above b John 6.5 I am that living bread that came downe from heaven if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever But the bread which I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world c John 6.35 I am that bread of life he that cometh to me shall not hunger and he that beleeveth in me shall never thirst IV. Christ never promised in the Gospel any orall manducation of his flesh but by expresse arguments rejected a it and therefore never established it by the Sacrament of his Supper And doubtlesse they sin grievously who at this day disturb the Church with their orall manducation which to acknowledge is no waies necessary to salvation to any but rather pernicious to many Testimonies of Scripture a John 6.61 62 63. When Jesus knew in himselfe that his disciples murmured at it he said unto them Doth this offend you What and if you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before It is the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are life V. The particle This as we teach and beleeve doth demonstrate the bread which Christ brake and that it is the true bodie of Christ not by conversion into the bodie nor by any reall co-existence with the bodie but by a sacramentall way because it is the Sacrament of Christs bodie or a sacred signe of it So the Apostle interprets Christs a meaning when he calls the cup The New Testament that is the Sacrament of the New Testament the bread The communion of Christs b body that is the Sacrament of that communion So c Austine The Lord saith he doubted not to say This is my bodie when he gave the signe of his bodie So d Prosper saith The bread is after a manner called the bodie of Christ and the sacramentall action is called the passion death and crucifying of Christ not in a reall veritie but in a signifying mysterie Testimonies of Scripture and of others a 1 Cor. 11.25 This cup is the New Testament in my bloud b 1 Cor. 10.16 The bread which we break c. c August cont Adimant cap. 12. d Prosper in Decret de Consecrat dist 2. cap. Hoc est VI. And whereas Christs bodie neither in the bread nor under the species of bread but rather in the word of promise is exhibited to us to be eaten by faith the wicked indeed eat the signes to their owne condemnation by abusing of which they sin against Christ himselfe but being destitute of faith they receive not his bodie Of which notwithstanding by the Apostles testimony they are guilty not that they receive it which by their infidelitie they tread upon but because they unworthily eat that bread which is the symbole or a signe of it Testimonies of Scripture a 1 Corinth 11.27 29. Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. Also Who eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to himselfe
for all beleevers I beleeve Ergo he dyed and prayed for mee But they are too cold comforters who teach afflicted consciences thus to reason Christ dyed for all men I am a man Ergo he dyed for mee Why may not a Turk a dog or a hog wallowing in the mire conclude so O brave comforters and Preachers of Gods word for the maineâ—inew of Christian comfort is not to be a man but to be ingraffed into Christ Againe they object out of the Apostle That all are made alive in Christ 1 Cor. 15.22 as all dyed in Adam But if they will absolutely say that all are made alive in Christ Scripture and experience will refell them This is it then the Apostle saith that Christ gives life to all his owne as Adam brought death upon all his owne And he indeed by grace which is more but this by naturall propagation which is easier This sense of the Apostle is proved by the subsequent words for when he had said that all were made alive in Christ hee presently subjoynes Every one in his owne order Christ as the first-fruits afterward they that are Christs that is beleevers who are given to him by the Father and for whom he earnestly prayed to the Father Neither is Austins interpretation different from this De civit Dei l. 13. c. 33. therefore it is said that all are alive in Christ not as if all that die in Adam were members of Christ but because as no man except in his naturall bodie dyeth in Adam so no man in the spirituall bodie is quickned but in Christ Neither have they cause to object that by these meanes Adam is made stronger then Christ if he destroy more by death then Christ preserveth by his death and life They know not what they bark against Be it so that all who are lost in Adam are saved by Christ But this way grace shall not abound but will be onely equall to sin The power of both is not to be measured by the number of those who die or live but by the manner by which perdition and vivification are obtained or else by the greatnesle of the benefits received or lost It s an easie matter to wound but hard to cure according to the Proverb You shall sooner and with more ease destroy 600 men then save one You shall sooner tumble downe many men from off the bridge into the water then you can preserve one from drowning So it was more easie to undoe all mankind then to restore one man from destruction That Satan could doe Adam could doe but this none can effect except Christ Beasts or afflictions can hurt offend and kill men but it is in no mans power save onely in his who is the Creatour of all things â—o restore salvation and life eternall Therefore Christs death had been stronger then Adams though he had restored but one man to life Besides it is certaine and out of question that the good things we have by Christ doe as far excell those things which we lost by Adam as heaven and eternitie exceed terrene and transient blessings For Adam was earthly saith the Apostle Christ heavenly he was naturall this spirituall he ejected us out of an earthly Paradise this hath introduced us into an heavenly Mansion and hath crowned us with eternitie of happinesse Thus I suppose we have sufficiently demonstrated and defended that the fruit of Christs death and resurrection doth appertaine to all and onely to them who repent and by faith adhere to Christ A briefe Introduction to the Controversie of the Eucharist explaining the chiefe Questions that are controverted or not controverted among the Protestants By D. DAVID PARIE Foure generall Remembrances 1. LEt the younger sort remember to discriminate between the questions that concerne the ceremonies and rites of the Supper and questions of doctrine which is the Evangelicall promise annexed to the ceremonie 2. Let them learne also to put difference between questions controverted and not controverted whether of doctrine or of ceremony 3. Let them know that the controversies about the ceremony are of lesse consequence and may for the most part yea should with moderation be decided or agreed upon according to the circumstances of time place and people but alwaies to edification 4. Let them know that there are three chiefe questions of the doctrine of the Supper not controverted and so many controverted to which all others may be easily reduced Of both I will briefly give some hints to young Divines Three uncontroverted Questions concerning the doctrine of the Supper 1. What the Supper of the Lord is All Protestants agree in this that the Lords Supper is a Sacrament of the New Testament instituted by Christ in which bread and wine being taken the true bodie and bloud of Christ is also received so that there is sealed to the faithfull the communion of Christ and of his benefits 2. What be the ends and uses of the Supper instituted by Christ All Protestants consent in this that this receiving confirmes the faith of the promises of grace both because this is the common use of Sacraments as also because Christ said of this Sacrament 1 Cor. 11.26 Doe this in remembrance of mee And This cup is the new covenant in my bloud Therefore they consent in this that the holy Supper is the commemoration of our Lords death untill he come according to the Apostles admonition 3. What is exhibited and received in the Lords Supper In this also the Protestants agree that bread and wine is received by the mouth and bodie the bodie and bloud of our Lord with all his benefits are taken by a faithfull heart I say the Protestant Divines agree in these but as for contentious pratlers they neither agree in these nor in any thing else whose brawlings should not measure mens judgements concerning the consent or controversies of the Protestant Churches The three controverted Questions be these Quest 1. What the union of the signe and thing signified is in the Lords Supper Whether transubstantiation or consubstantiation or else a mysticall relation To these the answer shall be in three Propositions two whereof shall be negative and one affirmative Proposition 1. The signe and the thing are not united by transubstantiation that is by such a mutation which turnes the substance of the signes into the substance of the things the bare accidents remaining Reason 1. From Christs words This is my body He said not Be this or Let this be made my bodie Reas 2. Bread in the Scripture is called bread in the action before and after the action Reas 3. The orthodox Fathers retaine bread in the Supper and when they speak hyperbolically of changing of the bread they will be understood sacramentally as Theodoret Dial. 1. Christ would have those 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 causa est sacramentis 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who receive the Sacraments not to be intent upon the nature of the things which are seen but
union and Sacramentall union must be such as agreeth to all Sacraments else shall it be no Sacramentall union in generall but in speciall The union in the Supper and The union in Baptism Others are of opinion that there is a corporall copulation of the signe and the thing signified The Sacramentaries opinion confuted making one masse and co-existence of both in one place But this kinde of co-existence and containing of one the other is no Sacramentall union because it agreeth not unto all Sacraments Therefore Sacramentall union is not corporall neither consisteth it in a presence of the thing and signe both in one and the same place and much lesse in any transmutation or transubstantiation but it is relative or respective and consisteth in these two things In what Sacramentall union consisteth 1. In a similitude and proportion of the signes with the thing signified whereof Augustine thus speaketh If saith he Sacraments had not a certaine similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments they should be no Sacraments 2. In the joynt-exhibiting or receiving of the things and in the lawfull and right use Epist 23. ad Bonifacium which cannot be without faith as hereafter shall be declared The faithfull only in the lawfull and right use receive the signes of the Ministers and the things signified of Christ and when we so receive both that is the signe and the thing signified the same is called Sacramentall union Proofes of Sacramentall union The proofe hereof is two-fold the first proofe is drawn from the nature of a Sacrament A Sacrament is a respective or relative word The foundation or matter in the Sacraments are the rites and ceremonies or externall visible actions instituted by God which are performed by men after a certain and solemne manner and are called by a relative or respective name Signes or Sacraments The terme respected or correlative is Christ and the communion of Christ and all his benefits or the internall spirituall working of God in us according to the promise of the Gospel this is called the thing signed or signified by the Sacrament because it is signified and confirmed by the outward rite The Relation it selfe is the ordination of the foundation to the terme that is of the rites to signifie the thing The correlatives are the things signified and the signes Hereby now appeareth that a Sacramentall union is nothing else but a relation of a sign to a thing signified Whence this infallible rule ariseth while the relation remaineth the thing and signes are coupled and when it ceaseth they are dis-joyned the meaning whereof is that as long as Gods order is retained in the signe and the things signified so long are the things exhibited and sealed with the signes but when Gods prescript ceaseth there can no longer be any exhibiting or sealing of the things by the signes The second proofe issueth out of the naturall proportion of Sacraments Sacramentall union is such as agreeth to all Sacraments therefore look what was the union of Christ with the old Sacraments such is it now with our Sacraments else either those Sacraments were no Sacraments or that union was no Sacramentall union namely such as agreeth to all Sacraments But that union could be no other but respective union Therefore Sacramentall union is now also respective 8. What phrases and formes of speaking of Sacraments are usuall unto the Church and Scripture Proper formes of speaking THe formes of speaking of Sacraments are partly proper and partly figurative The proper are 1. When the Sacraments are called tokens signes seales pledges and those sealing and confirming unto us that God will give those things which he hath promised Rom. 4.11 Gen. 17.11 So Circumcision is a seale of the righteousnesse of faith And it shall be a signe in thy flesh So bread is a signe of the body of Christ 2. When unto the signe are expresly signified adjoyned promises namely that receiving the signes we shall receive the things by them Mat. 16.16 Pigurative formes of speaking as when it is said He that shall beleeve and be baptized shall be saved A figurative or Sacramentall kinde of speaking is 1. When the names of the things are given to the signes as the Paschall Lamb is called the Passeover The rock was Christ 1 Cor. 5.7 1 Cor. 20.16 The bread is the body of Christ 2. Contrariwise when the names of the signes are attributed to the things as Christ is our Passeover 3. When the properties belonging to the things are attributed to the signe as The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ So Baptisme is said to wash away sinnes to save to regenerate 4. When contrariwise the properties of the signes are attributed to the things themselves Acts 22.16 Ephes 5.26 1 Pet. 3.21 Titus 3.5 1 John 1.7 John 1.33 John 16. as The rock was Christ We are washed by the bloud of Christ. All these phrases of speech signifie the same thing which is the promise of God adjoyned to the ceremony and this therefore 1. Because the signes represent and seale the things Baptisme is the washing of regeneration 2. Because the things and the signes are together received by the faithfull in the right use thereof Briefly A Sacramentall forme of speech is wherein the name or properties of the signe are given to the thing signified or of the contrary the name of the thing signified to the signe and the meaning is not that the one is changed into the other but that the signe representeth and sealeth the thing signified The cause of Sacramentall phrases and termes is the proportion between the signe and the thing signified Ad Bonifacium Epist 23. whereof Augustine thus discourseth If Sacraments had not a certaine similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments they should be no Sacraments Now out of this similitude they beare for the most part the names of the things themselves As therefore the Sacrament of the body of Christ is after a certaine manner the body of Christ and the Sacrament of Christs bloud is Christs bloud so the Sacrament of faith is faith And in another place The things which signifie In Lev. quaest 57. are usually called by the name of the thing they signifie Hence it is said The Rock was Christ for he said not The Rock signifieth Christ but as if it had beene that which verily in substance it was not but onely by meere signification 9. What is the right and lawfull use of Sacraments In the right use of Sacraments is respected THe right use of Sacraments is when the rites appointed by God are used by the faithful and penitent as signes of grace and pledges of Gods good will towards them It consisteth therefore in these three things The institution of Christ which must be pure When the rites ordained of God are observed and not corrupted The institution of Christ is to be
offer our obedience unto God 18. Wherefore also one and the same ceremony may be considered both as a Sacrament and as a Sacrifice as whereby God in giving us visible signes testifieth his benefits towards us and we in receiving them testifie again our duty towards him And this testification of our faith and thankfulnesse dependeth of that testification of Gods benefits towards us as of the chiefe and proper end and use of the Sacraments and is thereby raised in the minds of the faithfull The confirmation of such of the former conclusions as most require it THe confirmation of the second conclusion The definition therein delivered of Sacraments is expressed Genes 17.11 Exod. 20.20 Exod. 31.14 Thou shalt keep my Sabbaths Now that Sacraments are rites commanded and prescribed to the Church by God is apparent by the institution of them as also that they are rites adjoyned unto the promise as visible signes and tokens thereof Deut. 30.6 Heb. 8.9 10. because all Sacraments are necessary duties towards God But chiefly and principally they are Gods benefits towards us as Circumcision did portend and shew remission of sinnes and mortification Neither onely doe we signifie them in confessing and celebrating them but chiefly God himselfe doth signifie them unto us testifying and confirming them unto us by the ceremonies of Sacraments For the Ministers as well in the administration of the Sacraments as in the preaching of the Word beare the person and possesse the place of God in the Church Teach and baptise all Nations Mat. 28.19 John 4.1 2. Jesus did baptise when yet not he himselfe but his Disciples did baptise So of the signe and ceremony of inauguration or annointing one to be King it is said The Lord hath annointed thee 〈◊〉 Sam. 10.1 when yet Samuel was sent to annoint Saul They further are therefore said to confirme our faith because the Scripture witnesseth them to be the signes and tokens of the muâ—uall and everlasting Covenant betweene God and the faithfull which God signifieth unto us in the bestowing of his benefits promised us in the Gospel But God is alike to be beleeved whether by signes or by words which signifie his will because not onely our sacrifices and obedience but also the signes of grace delivered to us by God have in their right use the promise of grace adjoyned unto them As He that shall beleeve and shall be baptized shall be saved And lastly because the Scripture to signifie the receiving or want of the thing signified alledgeth the receiving or want of the signes Psal 51.7 Deut. 30.6 Rom. 3.6 2 Cor. 10.16 As Purge me with hysope and I shall be clean The Lord will circumcise thy heart All we which have beene baptized The bread which we breake is it not the communion of the body of Christ And hereof also follow the other ends specified in the definition in the second conclusion As That the Sacraments discerne and sever the Church from other Sects This is manifest both by effects and by restimonies A stranger shall not cate thereof Exod. 12.45 What is the profit of Circumcision Much every manner of way Rom. 3.1 Ephes 2.11 because unto them are committed the Oracles of God Yee being in times past Gentiles and called Vncircumcision of them who were at that time without Christ and were aliants from the Common-wealth of Israel and were strangers from the Covenant of promise Genes 17.11 and had no hope and were without God in the world It shall be a signe of the Covenant betweene me and you and it shall be my Covenant in your flesh Another end is that that they preserve the memory of Gods benefits As often as yee shall eate this bread ye shew the Lords death untill he come 1 Cor. 11.26 Exod. 12.14 Deut. 6 8. Luke 22.11 This day shall be unto you a remembrance Thou shalt binde them for a signe unto thy hand and they shall be as signes of remembrance betweene thine eyes Doe this in remembrance of me Lastly They are also bonds of love because they who are confederated with God Ephes 4.5 1 Cor. 10.17 are united also among themselves One Lord one faith c. We being many are one body The confirmation of the fourth conclusion The distinction there delivered is manifest in it self The receiving of the signs is corporal and external But the things especially signified are not received without faith because they are promised to beleevers onely And the signes are no otherwise true then the promises unto which they are annexed Againe The signes declare the same to the eyes which the promise declareth unto the eares As therefore the promise is but an empty sound without faith so also are the ceremonies vaine spectacles Againe the things signified are the communion of Christ and all his benefits but this can no man have otherwise then by faith either in the use or without the use of the Sacrament The confirmation of the sixth conclusion Such is the conjunction of all signes with their things signified as that they represent the things signified and confirme the acceptation of them For the pledges or tokens and symboles testifying other things are though not in the same place yet together with the things testified and signified The reason is Because To make one thing a signe of another thing is not to include or tye the thing with the signe as that they should be in one place but to ordaine the signe to signifie the thing the signe being in the same place with it or in some other place Againe the nature of the things signified by the Sacraments doth not admit the locall union For some are subsisting formes some accidents not inherent in the sacramentall signes but in the minds of men as the gifts of the holy Ghost Some are corporeall and in one place onely and not locally existent wheresoever the Sacraments are used as the flesh and bloud of Christ The confirmation of the seventh conclusion The Scripture speaketh thus of the Sacraments Circumcision is the Covenant the Lamb is the Passeover the bloud of the Sacrifices the bloud of the Covenant the expiation of the Sacrifices the Sabbath the everlasting Covenant the mercy-seat of the Arke Baptisme a cleansing or washing Bread and Wine the body and bloud of Christ And so the Scripture expoundeth it self when Circumcision is called the signe of the Covenant the Paschall Lamb the signe of the Passeover the Sabbath a perpetuall signe of grace and sanctification the ceremonies types and shadowes of true things the beleever and baptized shall be saved and of the signes and symbols of the Lords Supper it is said that they are to be received of our reconciliation The confirmation of the tenth conclusion The signes of the Covenant confirme nothing unto them who keep not the Covenant or who referre them to another end But the Sacraments are signes of the Covenant whereby God bindeth himselfe to give unto us
remission of sinnes and eternall life freely for Christs sake and we binde our selves to the yeelding and performance of faith and new obedience Therefore they confirme not neither assure them of Gods grace who are without faith and repentance or use other rites or to some other end then God hath appointed Moreover It is superstitious and idolatrous to attribute the testification of Gods grace either to the externall work and rite without the promise or to any other works invented by men Wherefore the abusing or not right using of the Sacraments hath not the grace of God accompanying it or assureth any man of it As it is said Circumcision is profitable Rom. 2.15 if thou doe the law c. The confirmation of the eleventh conclusion The figure of Baptisme being correspondent to the Arke of Noah doth also save us not the outward washing away of the filth of the flesh but the inward testifying of a good conscience towards God The bread which we breake is it not the communion of the body of Christ And seeing the Sacraments are an externall instrument whereby the holy Ghost fostereth and preserveth faith it followeth that they serve for the salvation of Beleevers as doth the Word But contrary the wicked through the abuse of the Sacraments and the contempt of Christ and his benefits which are offered unto them in his Word and Sacraments and through the confession of his doctrine which they imbrace not with a true faith purchase unto themselves the anger of God and everlasting pains according to the saying of the Prophet Esay 66.3 He that killeth a Bullock is as if he slew a man he that sacrificeth a sheep 1 Cor. 11.20 is as if he cut off a dogs neck And S. Paul Whosoever shall eate this bread and drink the cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. But the things signified because they are received by faith only and are either proper unto salvation or salvation it selfe as Christ and his benefits they cannot be received of the wicked neither can they at all be received but unto salvation The confirmation of the twelfth conclusion A promise and the signe of a promise having a condition of faith and fidelity adjoyned unto it are ratified whensoever the condition is performed But such is that promise which is signified and confirmed by the Sacraments therefore if in the use of them faith doth accompany which beleeveth the promise the things promised and signified are received together with the signes I might deale with thee as thou hast done when thou diddest despise the oath in breaking the covenant Ezek. 16.59 Neverthelesse I will remember my covenant made with thee in the dayes of thy youth and I will confirme unto thee an everlasting covenant The confirmation of the thirteenth conclusion The iterating of circumcision or baptisme hath beene no where received or admitted Neither is the reason hereof obscure or unknowne because those Sacraments were instituted to be an initiating or solemne receiving of men into the Church which is alwayes ratified to him that is penitent and persisteth therein But the use of other Sacraments is commanded to be iterated as of the Sacrifices the Passeover worshipping at the Arke Cleansings as also of the Lords Supper The cause is because they are a testimony that the covenant which was made in circumcision and baptisme is ratified and firme to him that repenteth And this exercising of our faith is alwayes necessary The confirmation of the fourteenth conclusion That there is one common definition agreeing to the Sacraments both of the Old and New Testament hath bin shewed before That the difference of them consisteth in the number and forme of the rites is apparent by a particular enumeration of them For in the New Testament it is manifest that there are but two because there are no other ceremonies commanded of God and having annexed unto them the promise of grace And that the old Sacraments signifie Christ which hereafter should be exhibited the new Christ who already was exhibited is apparent by the interpretation delivered of them in holy Writ whereof we spake in the definition Now they differ in clearnesse because in the New Testament the ceremonies are purer and signifying things complete and perfect In the Old were moe rites shadowing things to come all the circumstances whereof were not as yet declared The confirmation of the fifteenth conclusion What the Ministers doe in Gods name in the administration of the Sacraments and also that God by the Sacraments signifieth that is teacheth offereth promiseth us the communion of Christ was declared in the second confirmation Hereof followeth the next which is that the holy Ghost doth move our hearts by them to beleeve For seeing the Sacraments are a visible promise they have the same authority of confirming faith in us which the promise it self made unto us hath Of this followeth the third For that which serveth for the kindling or raising of faith in us the same also serveth for the receiving of the communion of Christ and his benefits And because we attaine to this by faith therefore it is said The bread is the communion of the body of Christ Baptisme doth save us Neither yet doth the holy Ghost alwayes confirme and establish faith by them as the examples of Simon Magus and of infinite others doe shew That the use of them hurteth without faith hath been proved in the second conclusion The confirmation of the sixteenth conclusion The Sacraments without the word going before doe neither teach nor confirme our faith because the meaning and signification of them is not understood except in be declared by the word neither can the signe confirme any thing except the thing be first promised An example hereof are the Jewes who observed and now doe observe the ceremonies but adjoyn thereto the not-understood promise of the grace and benefits of Christ Without the word those who are of understanding are not saved either by doctrine as by the ordinary means or by an internall and extraordinary knowledge He that beleeveth not in the Son John 3.18 Rom. 1.17 is already condemned Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the word of God But they may be saved without the Sacrament because although by some necessity they be deprived of these yet they may beleeve as the theefe did on the Crosse Or if they be infants according to the condition of their age they are sanctified as John in the womb and many infants also in the womb who died before the day of circumcision The word also is to be preached unto the wicked because it is appointed to convert them But the Sacraments are to be administred unto them who are acknowledged for members of the Church because they are instituted for the use of the Church only Thou maâ—st be baptized if thou beleevest Acts 8.37 The confirmation of the seventeenth conclusion The confirmation thereof is manifest
hath this force and power to testifie and seal by the commandement of God through the promise of grace adjoined by Christ unto this rite rightly used For Christ baptiseth us by the hand of his Ministers as he speaketh unto us by the mouth of his Ministers 4. Wherefore there is in baptism a double water an externall visible water which is elementary and an internall invisible celestiall which is the bloud and spirit of Christ So also there is a double washing an externall visible and signifying washing namely the sprinkling or powring of water which is corporall that is is perceived by the parts and senses of the body and an internall invisible and signified washing namely remission of sins for the bloud of Christ shed for us and our regeneration by the holy Ghost and our ingraffing into his body which is spirituall that is is perceived and received by faith and the spirit Lastly there is also a double administer of baptisme an externall of the externall baptisme which is the Minister of the Church baptising us by his hand and water an internall of the internall baptisme which is Christ himselfe baptising us by his bloud and spirit 5. Neither is the water changed into the bloud or spirit of Christ neither is the bloud of Christ present in the water or in the same place with the water Neither are their bodies who are baptised washed therewith visibly neither is the holy Ghost by his substance or vertue more in this water then else-where but in the right use of baptisme he worketh in the hearts of them who are baptised and spiritually sprinkleth and washeth them with the bloud of Christ and hee useth this externall symbole or signe as an instrument and as a visible word or promise to stay and stir up the faith of them who are baptised 6. When as then baptisme is said to be the washing of the new birth to save us or to wash away our sins it is meant that the externall baptism is a signe of the internall that is of regeneration or our new birth of salvation and spirituall washing and this internall baptisme is said to be joyned with that externall baptisme in the right use and administration thereof 7. But notwithstanding so is sin in baptism abolished that we are delivered from being obnoxious to the wrath of God and from the condemnation of eternall punishment and further newnesse of life is begun in us by the holy Ghost but yet the remnants of sin remain in us untill the end of this life 8. Now all they and they alone receive baptism to the right use who are renewed or renewing and are baptised to those ends whereto baptisme was by Christ instituted 9. The Church doth rightly administer baptism to all them and to them alone whom she ought to repute in the number of the regenerate or members of Christ 10. Seeing also the infants of Christians are of the Church into which Christ will have all those received and inrolled by baptism who belong unto him and therefore baptism was substituted in the place of circumcision whereby as well unto the infants as unto the elder sort which did belong unto the seed of Abraham justification regeneration and receiving into the Church was sealed and therefore no man can forbid water that they should not be baptised who have received the holy Ghost purifying their hearts those infants then must necessarily also be baptised who either are born in the Church or come together with their parents to it 11. As the promise of the Gospel so baptism being received unworthily that is before conversion is ratified and profitable unto salvation to them that are penitent and the use thereof which was before amisse and unlawfull is now become unto them right and lawfull 12. Neither doth the wickednesse of the Minister make baptism void or of no effect and force unto them so that it be ministred into the promise and faith of Christ and therefore also the true Church doth not baptise them who have been baptised of hereticks but only must inform and instruct them with true doctrine concerning Christ and baptisme 13. And as the convenant once made with God is also afterwards after sins committed perpetually firme and of force to the repentant so also baptisme being once received confirmeth and assureth the repentant all their life time of remission of sins and therefore neither ought it to be re-iterated neither to be deferred untill the end of our life as if it so only cleansed men from sins if no sins be committed after it is once received 14. Neither yet are all those who are baptised with water whether they be of understanding or infants partakers of the grace of Christ for the everlasting election of God and his calling unto the kingdom of Christ is free 15. Neither are all who are not baptised excluded from the grace of Christ for not the want but the contempt of the baptisme shutteth men out of the convenant of God made with the faithfull and their children 16. And seeing the administration of the Sacraments is a part of the Ecclesiasticall Ministery they who are not called unto this and especially women may not take upon them the power and authority to baptise 17. Rites which are patched by men to baptisme as hallowing of the water tapers exorcisms chrisme salt crosses spettle and such like are worthily reputed in the Church as a corruption of the Sacrament OF THE LORDS SUPPER ON THE 28. SABBATH Quest 75. How art thou in the Lords Supper admonished and warranted that thou art partaker of that onely sacrifice of Christ offered on the crosse and of his benefits Ans Because Christ hath commanded me and all the faithfull to eat of this bread broken and to drink of the cup distributed in remembrance of him with this promise adjoyned a Mat. 16.27 28. Mark 14.22 23.24 Luke 22.19 20. 1 Cor. 10.16 17. 11.23 24 25. 12.13 First that his body was as certainly broken and offered for me on the crosse and his bloud shed for me as I behold with mine eyes the bread of the Lord broken unto me and the cup communicated to me and further that my soul is no lesse assuredly fed to everlasting life with his body which was crucified for us and his bloud which was shed for us then I receive and taste by the mouth of my body the bread and wine the signs of the body and bloud of our Lord received at the hand of the Minister The Explication The chiefe Questions concerning the Lords Supper are 1. What the Supper of the Lord is 2. What are the ends thereof or wherefore it was instituted 3. What it differeth from Baptisme 4. What is the sense and meaning of the words of the institution 5. What is the difference between the Lords Supper and the Papists Masse and why the Masse is to be abolished 6. What is the right use of the Supper 7. What the wicked receive
Church in the Supper of his continuing and increasing his benefits unto us In the mean time it is one and the same Christ who both regenerateth and nourisheth us to eternall life In manner of using In the manner of using them To the lawfull use of baptisme regeneration sufficeth therefore it agreeth to all whom the Church reputeth regenerate as all elder persons professing faith and repentance and infants born in the Church But the Supper requireth farther the triall of the faith of the receivers the remembrance of the Lords death and thanksgiving Luke 22.19 1 Cor. 11.18 Doe this in remembrance of me Shew forth the Lords death till he come Let a man examine himself Baptism therefore is due to the whole Church that is as well to infants as elder persons the Supper onely to elder persons who can prove themselves and shew forth the Lords death In order of receiving In the order of receiving them For baptism must goe before and the Supper follow that is the sacrament of the Supper must not be given but to them who are baptised and not to them neither presently after baptisme but after they have made confession of their faith and repentance Whereupon in the ancient Church after the sermon were dismissed such as were excommunicated likewise those that were possessed or troubled with an evill spirit and the Catechumens that is such as did not yet understand the grounds and principles of religion or were not as yet baptised So of old they who were not yet circumcised were not admitted to the sacrifices or ceremonies Now if they who were baptised before they have made confession of their faith and repentance are not as yet to be admitted unto the Supper much lesse are they who being baptised live after the manner of swine and dogs In order of receiving it selfe which of baptism is but once of the Supper often In the receiving it selfe Wee must often celebrate the Supper because we must often shew forth the Lords death for it was therefore instituted that in it should be made publick remembrance recounting and shewing of Christs death also the confirmation of our faith concerning the eternall continuance of the covenant which confirmation is by the Supper is often necessary and therefore the Supper is often to be reiterated as also the eating of the Paschal lamb prefiguring this Supper was for this cause yeerly reiterated But baptism is not to be reiterated but once only to be received in our life time even as circumcision of old was but once received and baptism is therefore not to be reiterated both because wee have no commandement to this purpose and also because it is a signe of our receiving into the Church and covenant of God for the covenant once made is not againe undone or made void to those that repent but remaineth ratified and firme for ever For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance and wee by repentance after our falls enter not a new league with God but renew and restore an old Hereof it is that Christ himselfe saith of the Supper Luke 22.19 1 Cor. 11.26 Doe this as often as yee shall drink it in remembrance of me And the Apostle As often as ye shall eat this bread and drink this cup ye shew the Lords death till hee come Rom. 9.3 But of baptism the same Apostle teacheth As many as have been baptised into Christ Jesus have been baptised into his death And Christ pronounceth Mark 16.16 He that shall beleeve and be baptised shall be saved Quest 76. What is it to eat the body of Christ crucified and to drink his bloud that was shed Ans It is not only to imbrace by an assured confidence of mind the whole passion and death of Christ and thereby to obtain forgivenesse or sins and everlasting life a Joh. 6.35 40 47 48 50 51 53 54. but also by the holy Ghost who dwelleth both in Christ and us so more and more to be united to his sacred body b Joh. 6.55 56. that though he be in heaven c Col. 3.1 Acts 3.21 1 Cor. 11.26 and we in earth yet neverthelesse are we flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones d Ephes 5.30 3.16 1 Cor. 6.15 1 John 3.24 and 4.13 and as all the members of the body are by one soule so are we also quickned and guided by one and the same Spirit e Joh. 6.57 15.1 2 3 4 5 6. Eph. 4.15 16. The Explication THis question expoundeth and declareth the thing signified in the Sacrament The eating of Christs flesh and drinking of his bloud is not corporall What it is to eat the flesh of Christ but spirituall and compriseth 1. Faith of Christs passion and death 2. An apprehension of remission of sinnes and eternall life through faith 3. Our union with Christ by the holy Ghost dwelling in Christ and in us 4. The benefit of his quickning by the same spirit Wherefore to eate the flesh of Christ and drink his bloud is to be received into favour with God for Christs merit to receive remission of sinnes and be reconciled to God by the same faith to have the Sonne of God who assumed mans nature and united it personally unto him dwelling in us and coupling us unto himselfe and his assumed nature by pouring into us his Spirit through whom he regenerateth us and restoreth light in us righteousnesse and life eternall such as is eminent in his assumed manhood More briefly to eate is 1. To beleeve 2. To receive remission of sins by faith 3. To be united to Christ 4. To be made partakers of the life of Christ or to be made like and conformed unto Christ by the holy Ghost who worketh the same things in us and in Christ This eating is our communion with Christ which the Scripture teacheth and which we professe in the Creed namely a spirituall union with Christ as members with the head and branches with the vine Christ teacheth us this eating of his flesh John 6. and confirmeth it in the Supper by externall signes Thus did the ancient Fathers Augustine Eusebius Nazianzen Hilary and others expound the eating of Christs body as hereafter shall appeare Wherefore the opinions of Papisticall Transubstantiation of a corporall presence and of eating Christs body in the bread with the mouth which many defend are not grounded on the words of the Supper which promise the eating of Christs body Quest 77. Where hath Christ promised that hee will as certainly give his body and bloud so to be eaten and drunken as they eat this bread broken and drink this cup Ans In the institution of his Supper the words whereof are these a 1 Cor. 11.23 24 25. Matth. 26.26 27 28. Mark 14.22 23 24. Luk. 22.19 20 Our Lord Jesus Christ in the night that hee was betrayed took bread and when he had given thanks hee brake it and said Take eat this
is with in or under the bread they adde unto the words of Christ and depart from true simplicity For if that which Christ said is simply to be retained and that not to be admitted which he said not then may we not say The bread is both bread and the body of Christ but simply this only The bread is the body of Christ For he said not My body is with or in or under the bread or The bread is both bread and my body together neither addeth he as these adde of their own really substantially corporally but he uttereth these bare words of the bread This is my body Neither have the Transubstantiaries their opinion drawn from the words of Christ simply understood namely that of the bread is made the body of Christ or the bread is changed into the body of Christ for this is their own forgery and invention For Christ said not that the bread was now made or was a making or should be made but simply said The bread is my body where no change could come between so that the words of Christ be simply understood Therefore falsly do they perswade the people that they simply rest on the propriety of Gods word when as manifoldly and most farre they swerve and depart from it The true interpretation of Christ words We Protestants retain the words of Christ without adding or altering to wit that the bread is the body of Christ and indeed the true and visible body which was given for us But because these words literally taken would admit a sense repugnant to the truth of Christian faith for if bread were properly Christs body it would follow that bread was crucified for us therefore we affirm that in Christs words a convenient meaning must be inquired after that is Christs words must be understood sacramentally namely that the bread is called Christs body because it is a signe of Christs body the cup or wine in the cup is called Christs bloud because it is a sign of Christs bloud the cup is also called the new Testament because it is a signe of the new Testament even as baptism is termed a washing away of sins and a laver of new birth because it is a signe of both these which are wrought properly by the bloud and spirit of Christ The true sense therefore and naturall interpretation of Christs words is This is my body which is given for you that is This bread broken by me and given to you is a signe of my body delivered to death for you and an authentick seal of your conjunction with me so that he which shall beleeve and eat this bread he truly and really after a sort eateth my body Here therefore to the signe is attributed the name of the thing signified both for the conjunction which the thing signified hath in the right use of the Supper with the signe and also for the proportion which the signe hath with the thing signified In this exposition we are not led and over-ruled by Philosophy and humane reason as our adversaries traduce us and bear the world in hand we are but we observe those rules by which in the joint consent of all sound wise men wee are to censure the interpretation of any Scripture whatsoever namely by the analogie and rule of faith by the nature of the thing or subject by the testimonies of Scripture which teach the same thing Three rules wâ—ereby we may judge of the interpretation of Scripture For by help of these three rules the naturall sense of Scripture is wont to be examined as often as necessity driveth us from the letter to the sense and meaning 1. That no interpretation be received dissonant from the rule of faith or repugnant to any article thereof or any commandement of the Decalogue or any expresse testimony of Scripture for the spirit of truth is not contrary to it self 2. That the sense derived out of words signifying any thing have a congruity with the nature of the thing signified by the words as in this present subject of the Supper whereon wee insist when any question or doubt is moved therein we are to enquire seeing it is a Sacrament how the Scripture else-where speaketh of Sacraments and of the Supper it selfe 3. That other like places be weighed and considered by which it is either manifest and granted or may be demonstrated by some circumstance that they contain the same doctrine concerning the same thing which is contained in the place in controversie For if we be fully resolved of the meaning of any cleerer and uncontroversed place we shall also be resolved of the sense of the place in controversie if the same thing be delivered in both So then it is out of doubt that that meaning of the words of the Supper which is agreeable with these rules is true and those untrue which disagree from them But this our construing and interpretation which indeed is not ours but the doctrine of Christ himself his Apostles and all orthodox or right-beleeving antiquity doth every way sute with these rules wherefore undoubtedly it is most true and best beseeming the truth of the Gospel Now let us come to the arguments by which wee prove our interpretation to be true they are of four sorts 1. Some are taken out of the text it self and circumstances of the institution of the Lords Supper 2. Some are taken from the nature of the thing or subject that is by understanding the speech as the thing it self doth bear and suffer namely according to the nature of all Sacraments 3. Some are drawn from an analogie of the articles of our faith or from a conference of places or parts of Christian doctrine 4. Some are taken from other like places of Scripture where the same thing is delivered in such words as are manifest and whereof there is no controversie 1. The first sort of arguments taken out of the text and circumstances of the institution of the Lords Supper He sate down 1. CHrists humane nature at the first celebrating of the Supper by a corporall kind of placing sate in his proper place at the table and now is in heaven wherefore then it was not neither is it now corporally in the bread or in the place of the bread He took bread 2. Christ at the first Supper took not into his hands nor brake his body but bread wherefore bread is not properly and really the very body of Christ This is my body 3. Christs body was born of a virgin But bread is made of meal therefore it is not really Christs body 4. Christ said of the visible bread being broken This is my body and of the visible cup being distributed unto his disciples This cup is the new Testament in my bloud Therefore the Papists retain not the letter when they say My body is contained under the forms of bread and wine nor the Ubiquitaries when they thus speak My body is in with under this
fondly tell us Mat. 6.24 but from an impossibility as that of Christ Ye cannot serve God and Mammon Where the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ye are not able or ye have no possibility are likewise used as well as in this place 2 Cor. 6.15 and as that of the same Apostle else-where What concord hath Christ with Belial or what part hath the Beleever with the Infidell 3. This communion of the Saints with Christ and Christ with the Saints is spiritually expounded in Scripture 1 John 1.6 7. Our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ If we say that we have fellowship with him and walke in darkenesse we lye and do not truely But if we walke in the light as he is in the light we have fellowship one with another and the bloud of Jesus Christ cleanseth us from all sinne Neither doe we in the Creed beleeve any other communion of the Saints with Christ and Christ with the Saints but that which is spirituall Hom. 24. in 1 Cor. 10. 4. Lastly Chrysostome interpreteth Pauls words of a spirituall communion Why said he not participation That he might manifest unto thee somewhat more excellent then it to wit the strongest and mightiest union that can be And a little after Why call I it communion Yea we are the selfe-same body of Christ What is the bread even the body of Christ What are they made who receive the body of Christ not many bodies but one body For as the bread is kneaded of many graines so we also are joyned with Christ 4. Out of the words of Christ John 6.62 What then if ye should see the Sonne of man ascend up where he was before It is the Spirit that quickneth the flesh profiteth nothing the words that I speake unto you are spirit and life In these words Christ expresly rejecteth all eating of his flesh with our mouths and overthroweth by two arguments which wee have heretofore declared and on the other side he approveth and confirmeth our spirituall eating his flesh Wherefore we may not forge any corporall eating of Christs body in the Supper when such a kinde of eating is precisely reproved in the Gospel Object The sixth chapter of John treateth not of the Supper Therefore this testimony maketh nought against the eating of Christs body with our mouths instituted in the Supper Answ Here our Adversaries deceitfully argue from the deniall of a part to the deniall of the whole This Chapter we grant pertaineth not to the Ceremony of the Supper But hence it followeth not that simply it pertaineth not to the Supper For it concerneth the promise This is my body which is given for you because this promise is desumed out of this Christs Sermon registred in this sixth of John and is ratified and confirmed by the signes of bread and wine Wherefore it cannot be understood of any other eating of Christs body in the Supper then of that which is delivered in the sixth of John which is spirituall For bodily eating is in that Sermon condemned Repl. It is not simply the eating with the mouth that is there condemned but a Capernaiticall eating Answ All eating with the mouth is Capernaiticall For a Capernaiticall eating is not a bloudy renting onely and eating of Christs flesh and chewing it between the teeth but simply any eating with the mouth For the Capernaites say not among themselves How can this man give us his flesh to devoure to gnaw on with our teeth to rend asunder c. But they say How can this man give us his flesh to eate John 6.54 Neither doth Christ re-call them from a grosse eating with the mouth to a subtile kinde of eating with the mouth but to his ascension into Heaven which should shortly come to passe and thereby his body should be far removed from their mouthes and trained them to a spirituall eating which is with the heart by faith 5. Out of the same sixth Chapter of John To eate Christs flesh and To drinke his bloud signifieth To beleeve in Christ To dwell in Christ and Verse 54 56. To have Christ dwelling in us as appeareth because he attributeth the same effect of eternall life to both namely to the eating of his flesh and to faith in him But in the Supper this eating is authorised For no other purpose besides this can be shewed in the whole Gospel for sealing whereof the Supper was instituted Therefore To eate Christs body and To drink his blood is To beleeve in Christ To dwell in Christ and To have him dwelling in us 6. By one spirit are we all baptised into one body whether we be Jews or Grecians 1 Cor. 12 13. whether we be bond or free and have beene all made to drink into one spirit Hence we draw two arguments 1. Such as is the drinking of Christ such is the eating of him in the Supper The drinking of him is spirituall Therefore the eating of him is spirituall 2. The eating of Christs body and drinking his bloud is common to all the faithfull even to the Fathers of the Old Testament For we have all bin made to drink into one spirit But the eating with the mouth is not common to all the faithfull For the Fathers before Christs birth could not and at this day Infants and many of ripe yeeres having not liberty to partake of the Supper cannot eate his flesh with their mouthes Wherefore this mouthy eating of Christs flesh urged by our Adversaries is not that true eating which the Gospel promiseth and which the Supper sealeth The testimonies of Fathers in this point UNto these arguments drawne out of the sacred Scripture and the ground of our faith may be added testimonies of the Fathers and the purer Church who if we looke into their writings we shall finde that they plainly teach the same doctrine touching the Lords holy Supper which we do Among many we will produce onely some few notable and cleere in this point Irenaeus saith Lib. 4. cap. 34. The earthly bread taking his name from the word of God is no longer common bread but becometh the Eucharist or Sacrament which consisteth of two things an earthly and an heavenly thing Tertullian The bread which he tooke and distributed among his Disciples he made it his body saying This is my body that is The figure of my body Lib. 4. contra Marcion Praedag lib. 2. cap. 2. Lib. 2. Ephes 3. Serm. de Coena Clemens of Alexandria This is to drinke Christs bloud to be partaker of Christs immortality Cyprian Neither can his blood wherewith we are redeemed and justified seeme to be in the Chalice when the wine faileth in the Chalice wherein Christs bloud is shewed which is spoken of in every Sacrament and testimony of Scripture Againe the same Father saith As often as we doe this we sharpen not our teeth to bite withall but we breake and part the sanctified bread with a sincere
faith whilst we distinguish and separate that which is divine from that which is humane and joyning them againe after their separation confesse one God and man yea we our selves are made his body by this Sacrament and knit and united to our head by the thing signified by the Sacrament De divina mensa Et quod The Canon of the Nicene Councell Againe here also is the Lords Table Let us not childishly cleave to the bread and wine set before us but lifting up our minds on high by faith let us consider that on that Table is set the Lamb of God taking away the sinnes of the world which is offered of the Priests without killing and let us truely receiving his precious body and bloud beleeve that they are SIGNES of our resurrection For therefore we receive not much but little thereby to acknowledge that it is not received to satisfie In Litur de Trin. l. 8. Orat. de pas but to sanctifie us Basil We have set on the Table the figures of the sacred body and blood Hillarie The bread and wine received and drunke effect and worke that both we are in Christ In 1 Cor. 11. and Christ in us Gregory Nazianzene The figures of the precious body and bloud of Christ Ambrose Because we are delivered by our LORDS death being mindfull thereof in eating and drinking wee Signifie or Represent the flesh and bloud that were offered up for us De Sacr. l. 4. c. 5. Cont. Adim cap. 12. In Psa 3 Epist 23. ad Bonisac Againe This oblation is the FIGVRE OF THE BODY AND BLOVD of our LORD Jesus CHRIST Augustine Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when he gave a TOKEN of his body Againe The Lord admitted Judas to that banquet wherein he ministred and gave to his disciples the FIGVRE of his body and bloud The same Father saith Vnlesse Sacraments had a certaine likenesse of the things whereof they bee Sacraments without question they were no Sacraments And in consideration of this likenesse oftentimes they beare the names of the things themselves As therefore the Sacrament of the body of CHRIST is AFTER A CERTAINE MANER the body of Christ and the Sacrament of Christs bloud is his bloud so the Sacrament of faith is faith In senten Prosper de ause dist 2. c. Hoc est Againe As then the celestiall bread Christs flesh is IN SOME SORT called Christs body whereas indeed it is a Sacrament of Christs body namely that visible palpable and mortall body which was nailed on the Crosse and the sacrificing of his flesh done by the hands of the Minister is called Christs Passion death and crucifying NOT IN THE TRVTH OF THE THING but in a mysterie SIGNIFYING it So the Sacrament of faith by which is meant Baptisme is faith Serm. ad infant Also These my brethren are therefore called Sacraments because in them one thing is seene another understood That which is seene hath a bodily forme that which is understood hath a spirituall fruit or benefit In Mat. Hom. 83. Chrysostome This is my bloud which is shed for the remission of sinnes which Christ said to shew that his Passion and Crosse was a mysterie and to comfort his disciples Dialog 1. Theodoret Our Saviour verily changed the names of the signes and the things signified and gave the same name to the body which is proper to the signe and that to the signe which is proper to the body The cause of this change is manifest to them that are entred into the first principles of divine mysteries For he would that they who use the Sacraments should not bend and set their minds on the nature of the things which are seene but for the alteration of the names should beleeve that alteration which is made through grace For he who tearmed that by name of corne and bread which is by nature a body and called himselfe a vine he honoured the signes which are seene with the title and name of his body and bloud not by changing the nature but by adding grace to the nature Macarius the Monke hath a famous saying to this purpose Hom. 27. Bread and wine are a correspondent type of his flesh and they who receive the bread which is shewed eate the flesh of Christ spiritually Other testimonies for briefenesse sake we omit Of Transubstantiation NOw it is easie to see what we are to think of Transubstantiation even that it is an impious invention and device of the Papists which also we will shew and prove briefly by divers reasons But first we must declare in a word what the Papists properly meane by their Transubstantiation They suppose that by force of Consecration that is of uttering these words upon the creatures of bread and wine This is my body This is the cup of the new Testament in my bloud the bread and wine is substantially converted or turned into the body and bloud of Christ the formes onely or accidents of bread and wine remaining namely the shape or figure the heat the taste the weight c. They therefore call these words of Consecration operatorie and effective able to work and effect the conversion and change and they say that the change is fully accomplished in the very last instant of uttering the syllable * The Latine particle was UM hoc est corpua me VM which I chose rather to resemble by the English forme of Consecration DY This is my boDY and then there is no longer bread and wine but the body and bloud of Christ is present and is contained under the forms of bread and wine and is eaten and drunk in the Eucharist or Supper by the mouth of the Communicants Concerning the manner of the change it is not agreed on by all Some say that the substance of bread and wine is by Transsubstantiation changed into the substance of Christs body and bloud so that the bread and wine is essentially made the very body and bloud of Christ the externall formes only remaining and this they terme a substantiall change or change of the substance What the Papists call a substantiall change Others are of opinion that the substance of bread and wine is not changed but vanisheth by annihilation or by being brought to nothing and that then the substance of Christs body and bloud succeedeth in place thereof so that the substance of Christs body and bloud after the consecration cometh under these formes and accidents under which before was the substance of the bread and wine And this they call a formal change or a change of formes Lombard in his Sentences expoundeth both these opinions What they call a formall change Li. 4. di 11. Tho. Aqui. p. 3. q. 78. a. 5. and seemeth to approve the former alone Howbeit they call both these changes by the name of Transsubstantiation They affirm also that the particle This in the words of consecration doth note some indeterminate
place of the Supper Ans The Minor of this Syllogisme is figurative by the confession of the adversaries themselves For Jacobus Andreas in a disputation held at Mulbr when he could no wayes else escape expresly confessed that this proposition is figurative Bread is the body of Christ Protoc lat pag. 160. The same Andreas afterwards wrote that this phrase Bread is Christs body is proper Behold the spirit of contradiction and to be understood without any trope or Figure Is not this to blow hote and cold out of the same mouth to say one thing and to unsay it againe Object 4. Christs words are not to be changed Christ used the word IS This IS my body Therefore there may not be put in place thereof the word SIGNIFIETH Ans We grant the whole For we place not the word signifieth instead of the word is neither doe we change Christs words but retaine them as they were pronounced by Christ But we say that this is the true and naturall sense of those words namely that the bread is the body of Christ symbolically that is as a symbole or token of it or that it signifieth Christs body For so Christ himselfe construeth them saying Doe this in remembrance of me So Paul interpreteth them This cup is the New Testament in my bloud Tertublib 4. Cont Marc. And Tertullian saith The bread which he took and distributed among his Disciples he made it his body saying This is my body that is the figure of my body Lib. 4. cap. 4 5. de sacr Con. Adim ca. 12. And Austine Our Lord doubted not to say This is my body when he gave a token of his body 2. We retort the argument on our adversaries thus Christs words are not to be changed Therefore the Transubstantials glosse is false averring thus Vnder these forms is or is contained my body and likewise the Corsubtantials glosse in with under this bread is my body invisibly present 3. The words are not to be chaged to wit into another sense then Christ will have but otherwise they are often to be chaged that is interpreted aright as when it is said Pluck out thine eye To him that taketh away thy coate give thy cloake also For words are to be understood according to the nature of things Object 5. The words of Testaments are to be understood properly lest occasion of striving about the will of the Testator fall out the Supper is the New Testament Therefore the words therein are properly to be understood Ans To be Major we make answer that the words of Testaments are properly to be understood if they be properly spoken and figuratively if they be figuratively uttered If they say All words of Testaments are properly to be understood we deny the Major For it is sufficient that the words of Testaments be cleere and plaine though oftentimes they be not proper but figurative For when we are sure of the Testators will what it is in vaine doe we then dispute of the letter So God in the old time spake figuratively of Circumcision of the Paschall Lamb of the Sacrifices And Christ in the New Testament spake by a figure Take drinke This cup is the New Testament in my bloud For here is a double figure 1. A Synecdoche when he biddeth them drink of the cup that is of the wine in the cup. 2. A Metonymie when he calleth the cup the New Testament that is the reconciliation of mankind with God sealed by his bloud Object 6. The eating of bread is done by the mouth but the eating of the body is the eating of bread Therefore the eating of the body is done by the mouth Answ The Minor is either figurative or false It is figurative if you understand it thus The eating of the body is the thing signified and sealed by the eating of bread And so the manner of predication or affirmation being changed nothing is proved If it be properly understood it is false For the eating of the bread is externall corporall and visible but the eating of the body is internall spirituall and invisible Wherefore they are not properly one kind of eating but as the thing signified is distinguished from the signe so the receit of both of them is distinct though both be at once in the lawfull use of the Sacraments Object 7. That which quickneth and nourisheth must needs be received into us The body and bloud of Christ doe quicken us Therefore they must needs be received into us that is be eaten and drunken with the mouth Ans The Major is but meerly particular and therefore false in generall for not whatsoever quickneth and nourisheth us must necessarily be received into us That onely must be received into us necessarily which quickneth and nourisheth naturally that is by a joynt-touching of our body This meate which so nourisheth us after a naturall manner doth not nourish us except thereby the substance of our body be increased But we speak farre otherwise of the nourishing of the soule which is spirituall Christs body doth not at all nourish us naturally for it doth not being received in us quicken us by working in us new corporall qualities like as a medicine doth but the body of Christ nourisheth and quickneth us after a manner diverse from that naturall nourishing and accordingly as this manner of nourishing and quickning us requireth so receive wee Christs body The manner how Christs body and bloud nourish us The manner whereby Christs body and bloud nourish us is 1. The respect of his merit For for us Christs body is given and his bloud shed for us and for the body and bloud of Christ we have eternall life given to us After this manner then the body and bloud of Christ quickneth us as it is a merit deserving for us this blessing 2. His body or bloud quickneth or nourisheth us when we receive that merit of Christs body and bloud that is when we beleeve with a true faith that for it we shall have eternall life This faith resteth and hangeth on Christ hanging on the Crosse not corporally dwelling in us 3. It nourisheth us when the same spirit uniteth us by faith unto Christ and worketh the like in us which he doth in Christ For except we be graffed into Christ we doe not please God For he will on that condition receive us into favour and pardon us our sinnes so that by faith through the working of the holy Ghost we be joyned with Christ and ingraffed into him Seeing then this is the manner whereby the body and bloud of Christ quicken and nourish us there is no need of any descending of the body and bloud of Christ into our bodies to quicken us Repl. Not onely our soules but our bodies also are fed with Christs body and bloud unto eternall life Therefore our bodies must eate as well as our soules But our bodies eate and drinke by the mouth Answ The Major here omitted proceedeth thus Whatsoever
bloud is no remission Heb. 9.22 7. The Masse is repugnant unto the Articles of our faith concerning the true humanity of Christ concerning his true ascension into heaven and his returning from thence at the day of judgement For it fastneth on Christ a body made of bread it feigneth that Christ lieth hid corporally under the formes of bread and wine 8. The Masse is contrary to the communion of Saints with Christ For it imagineth an execrable invention which is that Christs body doth descend into our bodies and remaineth as long within our bodies as the formes remaine of bread and wine But the Supper teacheth that we are made members of Christ by the holy Ghost and ingraffed into him 9. The Masse is repugnant to the true worship of God because it maketh Christ to be there corporally present and so by consequent there to be worshipped Even as of old before his ascension it was not only lawfull but in duty required that Christ should be worshipped in whatsoever place he was and so also did his Disciples alwayes worship him when he was present as also when he ascended from them but after his ascension they did not from that time adore and worship him turning unto any one particular place more then other Wherefore seeing the Papists in their Masse tie the worship and adoration of Christ to a thing whereunto Christ himselfe by expresse word hath not tyed it They professe themselvs to be idolaters and doe no lesse absurdly and impiously in this then if they should worship Christ at a wall or if they should worship a pillar falling downe before it Hence it is evident that the Masse is an Idoll made by Antichrist out of divers and those horrible errours and blasphemies and substituted in place of the Lords Supper and for this cause is justly and rightly supprest Object 1. The Masse is an application of Christs sacrifice Therefore it is not to be taken away Ans I deny the Antecedent because we apply Christs merit by faith only as it is said Ephes 3.17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith Object 2. There must be a perpetuall sacrifice in the Church Esay 66.23 Mal. 1.11 because Esay foretold that it should be from Sabbath to Sabbath and Mal. They shall offer a pure offering Ans The sacrifices of the new Church of the Gentiles is the Sacrifice of thanksgiving and the Prophets insinuate unto us such a Sacrifice perpetuall and pure Such a Sacrifice of thanksgiving the Fathers termed the Eucharist 1. Because it is a remembrance of Christs Sacrifice 2. Because almes were given in the Primitive Church after the Supper was ended which were a Sacrifice But that the Supper should be a propitiatory Sacrifice the Fathers never so much as once dreamed Quest 81. Who are to come unto the Table of the Lord Ans They only who are truly sorrowfull that they have offended God by their sins and yet trust that those sins are pardoned them for Christs sake and what other infirmities they have that those are covered by his passion and death who also desire more and more to go forward in faith and integrity of life But hypocrites and they who doe not truly repent doe eat and drink damnation to themselves a 1 Cor. 11.28 10.19 20 21 22. The Explication Here are three things to be handled and declared 1. Who ought to approach unto the Lords Supper 2. What the wicked receive if they come 3. What is the right and lawfull use of the Supper 1. Who ought to approach unto the Lords Supper THese are distinct questions Who ought to approach unto the Supper and Who ought to be admitted to the Supper The former concerneth the duty of the Communicants the latter the duty of the Church and Ministers The former is stricter the latter larger and more generall for touching the former the godly alone ought to come touching the latter not the godly onely but Hypocrites also who are not known to be such are to be admitted by the Church unto the Supper Wherefore all that ought to come ought to be admitted but on the other side not all that ought to be admitted Who ought to come unto the Lords Supper ought to come but they only ought to approach unto the Supper 1. Who acknowledge their sinnes and are truly sorry for them 2. Who have a confidence that they are pardoned and forgiven them by Christ and for his sake 3. Who have an earnest purpose and desire of profiting and going forward more and more in faith and purenesse of life that is they only ought to approach and draw neer unto the Lords Supper and are worthy guests of Christ who live in true faith and repentance Herein a mans true proof and examination consisteth whereof Saint Paul speaketh 1 Cor. 11.28 What it is to prove himselfe Let a man examine himselfe and soâ—let him eat of this bread To prove thy self is 2 Cor. 13.5 How we may be assured that we have true faith and repentance Rom. 1.1.5 To examine whether thou have faith and repentance according as it is said Prove your selves whether yee are in the faith whether Christ dwell in you But how shall a man know that he hath these things 1. By a confidence and tranquillity of conscience because Being justified by faith we have peace towards God Hope maketh not ashamed because the love of God is shed in our hearts by the holy Ghost which is given unto us 2. By effects that is by the beginnings of true outward and inward obedience and by an earnest purpose to obey God according to all his commandements They who have and perceive this in themselves ought to draw neere and partake of Christs Supper namely whoso have faith and repentance not in possibility only but also actually Therefore infants are not capable of the Supper because they save faith only potentially and in possibility not actually they have an inclination to faith or they have faith only by inclination but they have not an actuall faith But here is required an actuall faith which is both a knowledge and confidence or assurance on Christs merit a beginning of new obedience and a purpose of living godly also an examination of himselfe and commemoration or remembrance of the Lords death Foure causes why wicked men and hypocrites ought not to approach unto the Supper It is not lawfull for the wicked to approach unto the Supper 1. Because Sacraments are instituted only for the faithfull and those which are converted to seale to them the promise of the Gospel and confirm their faith The word notwithstanding is common to the converted and unconverted that the converted may heare it be confirmed by it and that the unconverted also may hear it and therby be converted But the Sacraments pertaine to the faithfull alone and Christ instituted his Supper for his Disciples alone Luke 22.15 as he said I have earnestly
the light 1 John 1.7 we have fellowship one with another and the bloud of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin And further this communion whereof Saint Paul speaketh is our union with Christ and fruition of all his benefits by faith Hither belongeth the similitude of the body and the members the vine and the branches which have nothing to doe with any corporall eating This communion was and is common to all the faithfull from the beginning unto the worlds end But they could not eat the body of Christ corporally by their mouth That we might grow up unto him by whom all the body is coupled and knit together Eph. 4.15 16. He that is joyned unto the Lord is one spirit 1 Cor. 9.17 And by one spirit are we all baptised into one body Hereby know we that we dwell in him and hee in us 1 John 4.13 because hee hath given us of his Spirit This union therefore is that communion which is wrought by the holy Ghost wherefore it is spirituall For bread cannot be this communion but by a figure as it is a signe Repl. He that is guilty of the body of Christ eateth it They who receive unworthily are guilty of the body of Christ Therefore they eat it corporally for spiritually they cannot because if they could so eat it they should not be guilty Answ The Major is false For he is guilty of Christs body who by his sins hangeth it on the crosse again and despiseth Christs benefits For any reall eating is not required to this guilt but he that will not receive Christ offered by faith is thereby made guilty So the injury done unto the Ark is said to be done unto the Lord. Repl. They that discern not the Lords body eat it But the guilty discern it not Therefore they eat it Ans It the Major be taken sacramentally as of the bread which is called and is the body of Christ it is true but if properly it is false For not to discern his body is not to give due honour to it to contemn it yea not to receive the thing signified So They are said to tread under foot the Son of God Heb. 10.29 and to count the bloud of the testament as an unholy thing who contemn him 5. They reason from the testimony of the Fathers and the godly of ancient times in the purer state of the Church Ans The sayings of the Fathers are to be understood sacramentally or of our spirituall communion Repl. 1. Augustine saith Thou shalt receive this in the bread which hung on the crosse and this is the cup which was shed out of Christs side Answ In the bread as in the signe that is together with the signe thou shalt receive the thing signified When we receive the bread we are certain that wee have Christ Repl. 2. Cyril upon John saith By naturall participation not onely spiritually but also corporally not onely according to the spirit but also according to the flesh corporally and essentially Answ Cyril speaketh not of the manner of eating but of the thing which was to be eaten He sheweth that we are made partakers not only of Christs spirit but also of his humane nature Now he understandeth a spirituall communion 1. Because hee citeth those places concerning it John 6. 1 Cor. 10. where no mention is made of corporall eating 2. He speaketh of the presence of Christ not in the bread but in us 3. He proveth the abiding of Christ in us by the use of the Supper not by any corporall eating 4. He so describeth it that hee saith It shall continue in the life to come 5. Hee speaketh of that communion which is proper unto the saints Now this is spirituall for otherwise it should befall also to the wicked The shifts of Consubstantiaries whereby they go about to elude and shift off certain of our objections not all for moe are objected against them 1. WEe make not say they any Capernaiticall eating Ans We demand of them whether Christ be eaten by the bodily mouth be it after a grosse or after a finer manner But how ever they answer in that opinion which they hold there is too too much idolatry for Christ refuting the Capernaites doth not distinguish the eating of him into a grosse and a finer manner but saith simply That his body cannot be eaten with the bodily mouth for he saith that he must ascend And that the words which he speaketh are spirit and life 2. We maintain not Ubiquity for there is not a word thereof to be found Ans Here is to be observed the dissention of the adversaries about Ubiquity But neither is a word to be found hereof That the body of Christ is together in two places And further of this their opinion followeth Ubiquity For he that is together and at one time in moe places must needs be infinite and therefore every-where 3. Wee overthrow not the article of Christs ascension Ans Yea but they doe overthrow it For while they hold that as often as the Supper is celebrated Christ is corporally eaten they must needs say that he remaineth and is invisible on earth But he is said to have left the world to have ascended from a lower place into an higher and to remain in heaven untill he come to judgement Now that some except that Christ doth descend from heaven as often as the Supper is administred it is already refuted 4. We take not away the doctrine of the properties of Christs humanity Ans They altogether take it away For they will have his humane nature to be such as is not seen nor felt nor limited in place Rep. But Christ did put off these infirmities and retained the essentiall properties Ans But these are very essentiall properties which being taken away the verity also and truth of his humane nature is taken away Augustine saith Take away from bodies their spaces and they shall be no where 5. Wee abolish not the doctrine concerning the communicating of properties of both natures Ans Yea but they endeavour it For they apply those properties of his divine nature which are affirmed of the whole person in the concrete to both natures I will be with you to the end of the world This they understand of both natures which is all one as if when it is said Christ God and man was circumcised one should thus conclude Therefore the God-head of Christ was circumcised as well as his flesh Repl. This only we adde That those articles belong not unto them Ans After this sort all sects may shift off all testimonies of Scriptures But they belong hither and that by a double right 1. Because they are written of the body of Christ But the body of Christ belongeth to the Supper Therefore these articles also belong hither for they shew how Christs body is to be eaten 2. They belong hither because no article of faith is at variance with another So
by the changing of names to beleeve that change which is made of grace Here Theodoret himselfe in the same Dialogue teacheth that a sacramentall change is to be understood thus speaking He honoured the visible signes by the name of Christs body and bloud not changing nature but adding grace to nature Propos 2. The signes and things signified are not united by consubstantiation that is in the reall existence of two bodies in the same place under the same accidents or under the lurking of the one within the other such as is that of oates in the sacke of mony in the purse of the infant in the cradle or of wine in the pot which are like to things consubstantiated Reason 1. Because the words of Christ This is my body shew to us not where the bodie of Christ is nor what it is in with or under the bread but what the bread it selfe is and should be to godly men in this Sacrament to wit his bodie Reas 2. The bodie of Christ is a true organicall finite and visible bodie not present or every-where upon earth since the Ascension but existing and remaining in heaven even till his last returne As the Apostle tells us Declare the Lords death untill his coming againe Reas 3. The orthodox Fathers teach that the bodie and bloud of Christ are in the bread and wine not as in lurking places but as in a mysticall or in a mysterie Chrysostome in that imperfect work Matth. Hom. 11. In the consecrated vessels not the true body of Christ but the mysterie of Christs body is contained Propos 3. In the sacramentall Supper the signes and things are united by a sacramentall union This is it which is common to the whole kind of Sacraments otherwise this union were not sacramentall or of a Sacrament but of a Supper Now in all other Sacraments there is a relative union that is a mysticall signification obsignation exhibition and reception of the thing signified by externall symbols in the right use which is not without faith and repentance in the receivers Reason 1. From the genus in all Sacraments there is such an union therefore in this Supper also The Antecedent is manifest out of the definition and chiefe end of Sacraments Reas 2. The bread is the bodie of Christ either in the truth of the thing as Austin speaks in the sentence of Prosper or in a signifying mysterie not in the truth of the thing or essentially because there is no transubstantiation therefore in a signifying mysterie Reas 3. Hither belong all the Arguments by which a sacramentall phrase is proved to be in the words of the Supper for a sacramentall union begets sacramentall phrases Reas 4. The testimonies of Fathers that the bread is a signe a figure a sacrament of Christs bodie August contra Adim c. 12. The Lord doubted not to say This is my bodie when he gave the signe of his bodie The Objection of Papists for Transubstantiation out of the words of the Supper That which Christ gave and the Priest consecrates is Christs bodie Ergo it is not bread It followes because these are disparata As this thing is a man Ergo it is not an oxe I answer by denying that this argument is grounded upon the position of one species to the removing of the disparate species of the same genus because it is vicious proceeding from the position of a sacramentall relation to the negation of the subject or fundamentall Such as if I would say This man is a father Ergo he is not a man This man is Cesar Ergo he is not a man So they This bread is Christs bodie Ergo it is not bread It is therefore fallacia accidentis no lesse absurd then if you should reason from the position of the forme to the negation of the matter This thing is a table Ergo it is not wood For though Christs bodie is not the forme or accident of bread yet the relation which the bread by vertue of the promise hath to Christs bodie is the forme of the Sacrament So it doth not follow The Dove is the holy Ghost Ergo this is not a Dove Circumcision is the covenant Ergo it is not circumcision The cup is the New Testament Ergo it is not the cup. As for the testimonies of the Fathers which the Papists object concerning the changing of the symboles the common answer is That they are to be understood of a sacramentall not of an essentiall change which is manifest out of the orthodoxall consent of the Fathers on this Sacrament Quest 2. How as well the symboles as the celestiall things signified in the Supper are exhibited and received About this question we are at controversie both with the Pontificians and Ubiquitarians because both of them will have the things signified to be secretly and miraculously present in the signes or species of the signes and to be carried in and handled by the Ministers hands and to be received into the mouths of the communicants Wee teach on the contrary that the things are exhibited with the signes and are received together with them in the lawfull use of the Supper but in a different manner The symboles are touched by the hands of the Minister and received by the mouths of the communicants but the things themselves are exhibited by Christ himselfe our high-Priest and by faith are received of us Which also may be explained in three Propositions two negative and one affirmative Propos 1. The body and bloud of Christ which are the things signified are neither handled nor exhibited by the hand of the Ministers to the end that they should in these symboles be corporally received Reas 1. Is negative from the whole kind of Sacraments In no Sacrament doth the Minister handle or give spirituall things signified therefore neither in the Supper The antecedent is proved both by induction which is also plaine by the Adversaries confession as also by the analogie of Sacraments and of the Word Mark 1. I am the voice of a crier John 1. I baptise with water Hee that cometh after mee shall baptise you with the holy Ghost and with fire 1 Corinth 3.7 Neither is he that watereth nor he that planteth any thing but God who giveth the encrease Therefore it is so in the Sacraments which are the visible word Reas 2. The things signified are not in with or under the symboles being there corporally present as was shewed Quest. 1. Propos 2. therefore they are not handled by the Ministers fingers nor distributed Reas 3. The things signified in the Supper are spirituall which are offered to the faithfull in the promise of grace annexed to the symboles but the promise of grace is not touched by the hand c. Reas 4. The testimonies of Fathers as Chrysoft serm de Euch. in encaen Doe not thinke you that come to these mysteries that you receive from man the divine body that is from the Minister and many such like Propos 2. The
books reason thus Whole Christ is the naturall and onely begotten Sonne of God is the true and the same God of the same infinite power and majesty with the eternall Father conceived borne of the Virgin suffered was dead rose againe ascendeth into heaven sendeth the holy Ghost But both natures belong to the whole person of Christ Therefore Christ according to his humanity also is the naturall Sonne of God begotten of the substance of the Father from everlasting and consubstantiall with the Father and the same God with the Father who is Creatour of all If then the Ubiquitaries collection be lawfull also and sound this doubtlesse of the Swenkfieldians is lawfull also and sound but if the Swenkfieldians collection be corrupt and smelling of Eutyches heresie then that of the Ubiquitaries cannot be at all good and sound But indeed both collections are Eutychian and Sophisticall They are Eutychian because two natures which are made equall in properties essentiall or which get and have the same or equall essentiall properties are indeed made one nature and substance or are two substances of one nature both which opinions take clean away the nature of the humanity and trans-form it into the God-head but the latter doth further make two persons in Christ of the same nature They are also Sophisticall because whether the person of Christ be considered in it selfe as it was a person being but one and perfect and before the incarnation subsisting in one nature onely or whether it be considered as it is incarnate and now subsisting in two natures yet still the transition and passing from the person to the nature is faulty and Sophisticall For neither is it necessary that what is truly in and attributed unto a person the same also should be really in all things concurring in that person and be affirmed of all The reason is because the parts or natures though united in the same person yet retaine their properties and operations unconfounded Wherefore that which is proper unto the God-head cannot agree unto the person in respect of the flesh also but only in respect of the God-head Whole man understandeth discourseth and hath motion of will yet he doth not this by his finger or body but by his mind only whole man is mortall and doth go eat and drink yet none but a mad-man or an Epicure will therefore say that the soule also is mortall or doth go eat or drink So not halfe but the whole person of Christ was before Abraham and from everlasting did create and doth preserve all things and took flesh But the flesh neither was from everlasting neither did create nor doth preserve all things nor took flesh but was created and being assumpted and taken is sustained of the Word and in it So whole Christ was wounded and dead yet not his God-head nor his soule This is well and learnedly declared and explicated by Damascene in these words Whole Christ is perfect God but not the whole of Christ that is not both natures are God For he is not God onely Lâ—â— 3. Cap. 7. but also man And Whole Christ is the perfect man but not the Whole of Christ is man For he is not man onely but God too For the Whole signifieth the nature Whole the person Wherefore if the Ubiquitaries will at all have the illation and enforcing of their conclusion on these premisses to be necessary the Major proposition must be expounded after this sort The person is God creatour omnipotent every where whole that is as concerning all that which it is or in which it doth subsist or which doth belong unto it But the Major taken in this sense is false and most absurd as was shewed a little before For the true sense thereof is this The person is every where whole that is without division or sundring of natures or subsisting undividably in two natures But the humanity is not that whole subsisting in two natures Not every thing then that agreeth really to the person agreeth also really to the flesh And albeit the person doth subsist in the humanity and the God-head mutually united one to the other yet as it hath been said it is not hereof enforced that because the person is every where therfore the humanity should be in proper substance present every where For this is proper to the God-head neither is it really communicated to any creature or is in any Rep. The divinity is one person in al places but especially with the Church The divinity is but half Christ therefore only halfe Christ is present with the Church Answ 1. There is an ambiguity and doubtfulnesse in the words halfe Christ For if by halfe Christ they understand one nature which is united to the other in the same person the whole reason may be granted namely that not both but one nature onely of Christ though united to the other that is his God-head is present with us and all things in his proper substance in all places and at all times But they by halfe Christ understand craftily and sophistically the one nature separated from the other as if the God-head were made to be with us bare and naked and not incarnate But in this sense the Minor is false and the Ubiquitaries owne invention For the same Word by reason of the immensnesse and infinity of his essence is whole every where without his manhood yet so that he withall is and abideth whole in his manhood personally united thereunto Wherefore the Word neither is nor worketh any where not united to the flesh albeit the flesh because it hath not an infinite essence but retaineth it circumscribed in place is not made to be present substantially in all those places in which the Word incarnate or the Word man is 2. There is an ambiguity also and double signification in the word Presence For the presence whereby Christ is present with his Church is not of one kind Wherefore if the Major be understood of the presence of his substance in all places and of his being amongst us and all other things it is true For the substance or essence of the God-head onely and not of the man-hood too is immense and exceeding all measure alwaies existing and being the same and whole in all things But it is false if it be understood of the presence of his vertue or efficacy For according to this not onely whole Christ but also the whole of Christ is present with his Church onely that is not onely his divinity but his humanity also but so as the difference notwithstanding is kept of both natures and operations The humanity therefore of Christ is present with all the elect in what soever places they be dispersed through the whole world not by any presence substantiall of the flesh in the bread and within their bodies but 1. By the efficacie and perpetuall value of his merit For God the Father doth even now behold the sacrifice of his Sonne once accomplished on the Crosse
testifie that he doth in a lawfull and right use of them bestow the thing promised and so may confirme our faith or that he may instruct us of his will by his Sacraments and by them exhort us to receive and imbrace the blessings purchased by Christ and further seale by those Sacraments these benefits and blessings of Christ unto us Now the Sacraments seale these benefits and blessings unto us 1. Because Sacraments are signes 2. Because they are pledges having a promise Therefore by these signes and pledges of Gods favour towards us the holy Ghost effectually moveth our hearts no lesse then by the Word The second end is the distinguishing of the Church from Painims 2. To distinguish the Church from others and all other Sects whatsoever For God will have his Church to be beheld in the world and to be knowne by these sacred signes as souldiers are knowne by their military tokens and sheep by those marks which their shepheard seareth seareth in them He willeth the Jewes to be circumcised and Christians to be baptized he interdicteth aliens and strangers and excludeth them from eating of the Paschall Lamb. God will have his Kingdome discerned from the Synagogue of Sathan for these two causes 1. For his owne glories sake 2. For our comfort and salvation For as he will not have himselfe shuffled and mingled with Idols so neither will he have his people shuffled and mighled with the Kingdome of the Devill The third end is the profession and testification of our thank fulnesse and duty towards God 3. To prosesse and testifie our thankfulnesse which is the bond whereby we are obliged unto Christ to be his people as he is our God to shew true repentance to beleeve in him and to receive of him his benefits offered unto us The fourth is the propagation and maintenance of the doctrine 4. To propagate and maintain the doctrine because God will not have the use of his Sacraments to be without the Word and application thereof The fifth is an occasion thereby given to the yonger sort to inquire what these things meane 5. To give an occasion to the younger to inquire and learne the things by them signified Exod. 13.14 and so an occasion also of explicating and preaching the benefits of Christ unto them As also the Lord saith unto his people When thy son shall aske thee to morrow saying What is this Thou shalt then say unto him With a mighty hand the Lord brought us out of Egypt out of the house of bondage The sixth and last end is that they may be bonds of mutuall dilection and love because they 6. To unite us in mutuall love and affection who are entred into an association or confederacy with Christ the head of the Church ought not to be at difference among themselves By one spirit are we all baptized into one body In like manner the Sacraments are the bonds of publike meetings and congregations in the Church When ye come together to eate tarry one for another For we that are many are one bread 1 Cor. 12.13 11.33 10.17 Ephes 4.5 and one body because we are all partakers of one bread One God one Faith c. But we cannot settle among us this communion neither maintaine and continue it being once settled neither profitably annunciate and shew sorth the death of the Lord as long as we dissent and jarre among our selves contentiously about the institution of the Sacraments For the Sacraments are pledges of that communion which Christians have first with Christ and then between themselves In what Sacraments differ from Sacrifices WE must hold and observe a difference betweene Sacrifices and Sacraments that we may know what to doe when we come unto the Sacraments and not make Sacrifices of Sacraments that is present our owne workes imagining that they please God for the very work done and deserve remission of sinnes as Papists doe Now the difference betweene these consisteth especially in two things In their kind and nature In their kinde and nature For Sacraments are onely ceremonies witnessing unto us Gods will Sacrifices may be ceremoniall and morall works also as our Sacrifices of thanksgiving of praise and thankfulnesse the calves of our lips our almes c. are morall works whereby we yeeld unto God due obedience and honour without any ceremony In their principall end In their principall and chiefe end In the Sacraments God offereth unto us his benefits but Sacrifices are testimonies of our obedience towards God This appeareth out the definition of both A Sacrament it a work wherein God giveth us something to wit the signes and the things signified A Sacrament A Sacrifice and wherein he testifieth of his offering and bestowing his benefits upon us A Sacrifice is a work wherein we yeeld unto God obedience or the worship which he hath commanded us Or it is our work done in faith and to this end principally That God may have his due honour and obedience They differ then as these two To give and To take differ For God giveth Sacraments unto us and he receiveth Sacrifices of us Howbeit the same rite or ceremony may be in diverse respects both a Sacrament and a Sacrifice A Sacrament as it is given of God A Sacrifice as it is used by the godly performing to God their obedience and yeelding him tanks Therefore a Sacrament and Sacrifice are often one and the selfe-same thing The same thing or work may be a Sacrifice and a Sacrament in a diverse respect but still they differ in respect All Sacraments then in respect of us are Sacrifices also but those onely Eucharisticall and of thanksgiving not propitiatory For there is but one onely Sacrifice propitiatory to wit the ransome of Christ offered for us on the Crosse Hence we easily may answer unto that objection Object The Passeover and other ceremonies of the Old Testament were both Sacrifices and Sacraments Therefore the Sacraments doe nothing differ from Sacrifices Ans More is in the conclusion then in the premisses because this only followeth That the same thing may be a Sacrament and a Sacrifice So Baptisme and the Lords supper are Sacraments and Sacrifices in a diverse manner and respect They are Sacraments and that principally because they are the work of God who giveth us something in them and doth therein testifie his gift unto us For in them he reacheth unto us certaine symbols and tokens by his Ministers as also by his Ministers he speaketh as by his mouth unto us according as it is said Luke 10.16 He that heareth you heareth me So therefore every Minister reacheth with his hand the Sacraments unto us and we receive them at their hands as at the hands of God if so we take them with reverence but much more God giveth and as it were reacheth with his hand unto us in the lawfull and right use of the Sacraments the things themselves which are
retained pure and uncorrupt the additions of Antichrist are to be taken away and those things which he took away are againe to be added The presons receiving who must be beâ—eevers Acts 8.37 Mat. 3.6 When those persons use those rites for whom God hath ordained them Wherefore the houshold of Christ only that is Christians who by profession of faith and repentance are the Citizens of the Church must use these rites If thou beleevest withall thine heart thou maiest be baptized So also they are baptized of John Who confesse their sinnes The end for which they were instituted When the rites and Sacraments are used to that end for which they were instituted which we have heretofore handled It any of these conditions be broken to wit if either the rite or end be changed without authority from God or the signe be received without faith it is cleare that the thing and the signe doe no longer continue united after Gods ordinance Of the person receiving the Sacrament it is said Circumcision profiteth thee if thou keep the law Of the breach of the rites Paul pronounceth when yee come together therefore into one place this is not to eat of the Lords Supper Of mistaking the end Rom. 2.25 1 Cor. 11.20 Hos 5.6 Hosea the Prophet saith they shall go with their sheep and with their bullocks to seeke the Lord but they shall not finde him For sacrifices were not instituted by God to this end to merit justification and salvation Why we may not change the rites in the Sacraments Wherefore it is not lawfull to transforme the rites to any other end or use besides that whereunto they were ordained 1. Because that is not to obey Gods commandement 2. Because if the signes be changed or converted to another use or the Covenant not kept the consent of him that promiseth is lost without which the signe or earnest confirmeth nothing Wherefore the Sacraments without their right use are no Sacraments but rather vaine and fruitlesse spectacles neither have they the nature of Sacraments But the right and lawfull use of them consisteth especially in faith and repentance They who have not this unto them the Sacraments are no Sacraments Wherefore they are besides themselves who say that unbeleevers and infidels receive together with the signes the things signified by the signes 10. What the wicked receive in the use and administration of the Sacraments The wicked receive the bare signes without the things thereby signified IN the Sacraments we are specially to consider what to whom and how God offereth and communicateth The wicked although God in his Sacraments offer to them also his benefits yet seeing they are without faith they receive the bare signes onely and those to their judgement and condemnation This is proved 1. Because the benefits of Christ are received onely in the right use of the Sacraments but they neglect the right use of them who receive them unworthily without faith and repentance Wherefore Paul also saith Whosoever shall eate this bread 1 Cor. 11.27 and drinke the cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the body and bloud of the Lord. But the wicked eat it and drink it unworthily because they prophane the Sacraments and transforme God into the Devill and the sons of God into the sons of the Devill 2. Unto whom nothing is promised in the word to him the Sacraments seale nothing To the wicked nothing is promised in the word for all promises in the word have a condition of faith and repentance annexed unto them The Sacraments therefore seale and bestow nothing on the wicked For after what manner and unto whom a Charter promiseth any thing after the same manner and unto the same men doth the signe and seale annexed unto the Charter promise the same also Semblably God performeth his benefits after the same manner and unto the same persons after which manners and unto which persons he promiseth them But unto the wicked he hath promised nothing so long as they remaine in their unbeliefe 3. We receive spirituall things by faith The wicked have no faith Therefore neither doe the wicked receive spirituall things 4. To be wicked and to receive the Sacraments entirely implyeth a contradiction 11. How many Sacraments there are of the new Testament THis point shall be answered in the sixty and eighth Question of the Catechisme Quest 67. Doe not then both the Word and Sacraments tend to that end as to lead our faith unto the sacrifice of Christ finished on the Crosse as to the onely ground of our salvation Answ It is even so For the holy Ghost teacheth us by the Gospel and assureth us by the Sacraments that the salvation of all of us standeth in the onely sacrifice of Christ offered for us on the Crosse a Rom. 6.2 Gal. 3.27 The Explication 4. In what Sacraments agree with the Word and in what they differ from it THe Sacraments have some things in them agreeable with the Word and some conditions also different from the same The Sacraments and the word agree The Sacraments agree with the Word in these things In exhibiting the same thing unto us Both exhibite the same things unto us For by both God doth testifie unto us his will and by both he purposeth the same benefits the same grace and the same Christ unto us neither doth God confirm or represent by his Sacraments any other thing then he hath promised in his Word and they who seek for any other thing in the Sacraments then is prescribed in the Word of God frame and make Idols In proceeding from the H. Ghost Both are instruments of the holy Ghost to kindle and strengthen faith in us and so both also confirme and establish faith In being instituted and offered by God God instituteth both God offereth both In being accomplished by God God accomplisheth both by the Ministers of his Church For he speaketh with us in his Word by the Ministers and by the Ministers he offereth and giveth us these signes in the Sacraments But the things themselves which are signified by these signes the Son of God immediately offereth unto us He saith Receive the holy Ghost The bread which I will give you John 20.22 John 6.51 Matth. 3.11 is my flesh And John saith of him Indeed I baptise you with water to amendment of life but he that cometh after me will baptise you with the holy Ghost and with fire The Sacraments differ from the Word in these things They disagree In substance and nature In substance and nature For words signifie according to the appointment of men whom it pleased that things should be so expressed and signified Signes signifie according to a similitude which they have with the things by them signified Words we heare and read signes we perceive also by feeling seeing and tasting Words signifie onely Symboles and signes confirme also In the persons to whom
because Christ testifieth unto us by these signes that hee doth as verily feed us with his body and bloud unto everlasting life as wee receive at the hand of the minister these the Lords signs and this testification is directed to every one who receiveth the signes with a true faith For wee so receive the signes at the ministers hand as that rather the Lord himself giveth them us by his ministers John 4.1 Wherefore Christ is said to have baptised moe disciples then John when yet he did it by his Apostles and other disciples Distinction of Christians from infidels That it might be a publick distinction or marke discerning the Church from all other nations and sects For the Lord instituted and appointed his Supper for his disciples and not for others Testification of our faith That it might be our testification to Christ and the whole Church which is a publick confession of our faith and a solemn thanksgiving and binding our selves to perpetuall thankfulnesse and the celebration of this benefit both which are proved by these words of Christ Luke 22.19 1 Cor. 11.26 Doe this in remembrance of me This remembrance is taken first for faith in the heart then for thanksgiving and our publick confession To be a bond of the Churches assembly That it might be a bond of the Churches assemblies and meetings because the Supper was instituted that it should be done and celebrated in a congregation and that either great or small Therefore the Supper as was said before is called a * Synaxis Mat. 20.27 1 Cor. 11.33 Convent and Christ expresly commandeth Drink yee all of this Likewise Paul When ye come together to eat stay one for another To be a bond of love among men 1 Cor. 10.17 That it might be a bond of mutuall love and dilection because the Supper testifieth that all who receive it aright are made the members of Christ under one head as also Paul saith For wee that are many are one bread and one body because we are all partakers of one bread Now the members of one body mutually love one another The Lords Supper may not be celebrated by one onely Of this which hath been spoken we gather that the Lords Supper ought not to be celebrated by one onely 1. Because it is a communion and the signe of our communion and a private supper is no communion 2. Because it is a solemne thanksgiving and all ought to give thanks unto God and by consequent hee that thinketh himself unworthy to communicate with others in the Lords Supper doth withall confesse himselfe not to be fit to give thanks unto God 3. Because Christ together with his benefits is not proper to any but common to all wherefore a private Supper maketh that good private which should be publick 4. Christ called all his houshold unto it even Judas himselfe Therefore a private Supper is coutrary to Christs institution 5. That some abstain from coming to the Supper it cometh of a certain evill and corrupt motion either because they will not communicate with others or because they think themselves not worthy enough to approach unto this Table But all are worthy who beleeve themselves to be desivered by Christ from eternall damnation and desire to profit and goe forward in godlinesse In summe if the Supper be received by one onely that is done against the use appellation institution and nature of the Sacrament Object An objection against that end which before â—as alledged to be principal in the Lords Supper Christ in the words of the institution of the Supper putteth as the principall end of his Supper his remembrance Therefore the confirmation of faith must not be made the principall end of his Supper Ans The reason followeth not to the deniall of a part by putting the whole For the remembrance of Christ is the whole wherin is comprised both our confession and our solemn bond to thankfulnesse and also the consirmation of our faith Wherefore rather by inverting the reason I thus inferre and conclude because the remembrance is the Supper therefore it is the confirmation of our faith and because also Christ proposeth unto us that ceremony or rite which must be unto us a remembrance of him hee doth verily propose also a confirmation of our faith which is nothing else but a remembrance of Christ and his benefits Ob. The holy Ghost confirmeth our faith therefore the Supper doth not Ans The reason followeth not to the removing of an instrumentall cause by the putting of a principall cause as if a man should say God feedeth and nourisheth us therefore bread doth not For the holy Ghost confirmeth indeed our faith but by the word and sacraments as God feedeth and nourisheth us but by bread 3. What the Supper differeth from Baptisme ALthough the same benefits are imparted and sealed unto us both in the Lords Supper and in Baptism to wit a spirituall ingraffing into Christ and a communion with him and the whole benefit of salvation whereof the Apostle speaketh saying By one spirit are we all baptised into one body 1 Cor. 12.13 and have been all made to drink into one spirit Yet many and manifest are the differences of these sacraments for the Supper differeth from Baptisme In ceremonies In ceremonies or externall rites In signification of ce emonies The same thing is sealed in baptism and the Supper but the meanes of sealing is diverse In the signification of the ceremonies For albeit it is the same participation of Christ namely both the washing away of sins by the bloud of Christ which is represented in baptisme and eating and drinking of the body and bloud of Christ which is confirmed unto us in the Supper yet notwithstanding that signification of our new birth is sealed by the dipping of our body into the water of baptisme and this of our maintenance and preservation is depainted and sealed by the eating and drinking of bread and wine in the Supper And therefore the thing signified of the sacraments is not divers because it is the same To be washed with the bloud of Christ and To drink the bloud of Christ But the manner of signifying one and the same thing is divers In ends In their proper ends Baptisme is a covenant made betweene God and the faithfull the Supper is a signe of the continuing of that covenant Or Baptisme is a signe of regeneration and of our entrance into the Church and covenant of God the Supper is a signe of their fostering abiding and preservation who are once entred into the Church The new man must first be born by the spirit of Christ and the signe of this renewing or regeneration is baptisme afterwards when he is once renewed and born again hee must be fostered and nourished by the body and bloud of Christ the signe of which nourishing is the Supper Briefly in baptisme God confirmeth us of our receiving into the
finer manner but simply rejecteth all eating of his flesh with the bodily mouth We may not therefore forge any corporall eating in the Supper contrary to the Gospel 6. The conceit of a corporall presence and feeding on Christs flesh under the bread is wholly different and diverse from the formall consideration of a Sacrament Therefore it is to be rejected The Antecedent is proved because it cannot be accounted either for the signe or the thing signified of which two every Sacrament wholly consisteth It is not the signe or sacrament because it is not object to the senses and if it were there is nothing which it might signifie And further it hath no proportion or similitude with the thing that is with the spirituall eating Neither can it be said to be the thing signified seeing the Scripture no where speaketh of an essentiall transfusion and reall commixtion of Christs flesh with our bodies neither can there be any except wee entertain the follies and dreams of Eutychians and Swenckfeldians For the sacraments testifie of those blessings only and them onely doe they seale unto us which are contained in the promise of the Gospel Againe it is not the thing signified because this eating may be without faith and is common to the godly and ungodly But the things signified in the sacraments are received by faith alone and of the faithfull and godly alone Besides if it were the thing signified none had ever beene sayed or at any time should have beene saved without it For in all Sacraments the things signified are the same and are given to all that are to be saved because they are the benefits of the Messias comprehended in the promise of the Gospel which benefits are the same unto all and without them no man is saved Therefore no place is left for a substantiall presence and mouthy eating of Christs body under the bread or under the forme of bread and this substantiall presence and mouthy eating is indeed nothing but a vaine name and Idoll in the world Object The corporall eating is a signe of the spirituall eating and a singular confirmation of faith Therefore Christs body is also a Sacrament or signe and invisible grace is the thing signified Answ The Antecedent is denied 1. Because Christs flesh under the bread is invisible Therefore it cannot signifie another invisible thing or strengthen faith For Sacraments or signes ought to be visible so that it deserveth not saith Erasmus to be called a Sacrament which is not accomplished by an externall signe For to this end and use are they given of God that they may as it were effectually shew to our outward senses that which is promised in the Word and performed by the holy Ghost in our hearts that they may be visible testimonies and pledges of the promise of grace exhibited and applyed Whence is that saying of Austine a Sacrament is a visible word And Lib. 19. cap. 18. cont Fault lib. 2. cap. 1. De Doct. Christ de Catech-rud ca. 26. Prosp in sentent it is a visible forme of invisible grace And A signe is a thing besides that forme which it presenteth to our senses causing something else by it selfe to come into the knowledge And the signes indeed of divine things are visible but the things themselves are invisible And that of Prosper The sacrifice of the Church consisteth in two things in the visible forme of elements and the invisible flesh and bloud of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Sacrament or signe and in the thing of the Sacrament that is the body of Christ Therefore no thing or action which is invisible insensible and not naturall can make the nature or appellation of a Sacrament And consequently they who will have Christs flesh in under or with the bread to be a Sacrament or will have the bread to be transsubstantiated into his flesh let them shew us a visible or sensible eating of it in the Supper lest they seeme to dissent from the ancient Fathers 2. There must be an analogy and proportion betweene the signe or Sacrament and the thing signified or the thing of the Sacrament For Except the Sacraments saith Austine had some similitude of those things whereof they are Sacraments they were not verily and Sacraments Now Epist 23. ad Bonifacium if Christ flesh be also a Sacrament and the thing of those Sacraments be invisible grace what proportion then and similitude shall there be between the two Sacraments but seeing there can be none it followeth that Christs flesh may not be called a Sacrament as being no lesse the thing it selfe of the Sacrament then eternall salvation signified by way of proportion by visible bread as by a signe Wherefore the sacramentall eating which is done naturally by the mouth doth not belong unto the body of Christ considered by it selfe in any physicall or naturall respect because unto this sacramentall eating the externall signes only are object in their owne nature S. Austine demanding how bread is the body of Christ and wine his bloud These saith he brethren are therefore called Sacraments because in them one thing is seene and another thing understood That which is seene Serm-ad Infant hath a corporall forme that which is understood hath a spirituall fruit If then thou wilt understand the body of Christ here the Apostle speaketh to the faithfull Yee ar the body of Christ and his members If then yee be the body of Christ and his members your mystery is set on the table c. 7. The communion of Christ which is promised in his Word and sealed in his Sacraments is not corporall but spirituall But the communion of Christ which is given in the Supper is the same with that which is promised in the Word and sealed in all other Sacraments Therefore the communion of Christ in the Supper is not corporall but spirituall The Major is manifest For in the Gospel no other communion is delivered or specified but that which is spirituall The Minor also is evident because the same benefits are proposed in all the promises of the Gospel which are presented and offered in the Sacraments For the Sacraments are the visible word because they promise that which the Word promiseth by visible signes and are seales of the promise of the same grace 8. There is one and the same signification of all the Sacraments of the Old and New Testament and in them one and the same communion of Christ But the signification of all other Sacraments and their communion is spirituall onely Therefore there is no other in the Supper The Minor is granted on all sides The Major is demonstrated by the Apostle in these words 1 Cor. 12.13 10.2 By one spirit we are all baptized into one body And All were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea and did all cate the same spirituall meate Object There is not the same thing signified of all Sacraments For in Baptisme the thing
is The washing by the bloud of Christ in the Supper The body and bloud of Christ Ans The thing is not diverse because it is the same To be washed by the bloud of Christ and To drink the bloud of Christ as we have heretofore proved But the manner of the signifying one and the same thing is diverse that is there is a diverse similitude of one and the same thing signified by the signes or one and the same thing hath a diverse similitude or proportion Therefore as in Baptisme so in Circumcision likewise and the Passeover is promised a spirituall thing not a corporall and so also here in the Lors Supper 3. The third sort of Arguments which are deduced from the analogie of faith 1. FIrme and strong reasons are drawne from the Article which is concerning the truth of Christs humane nature Christ took a humane nature like unto us in all things sinne only excepted and retaineth the same through all eternity for our comfort and safety but humane nature is neither infinite neither can it be in moe places at once nor visible and invisible both together For it is proper unto the Deity only which is unmeasurable to be essentially in many or in all places at once according to that saying of Scripture Jerem. 23.24 Am not I he which fill heaven and earth and by this very attribute or property God is distinguished from all creatures Now the God-head it selfe cannot at the same time be both visible and invisible finite and infinite but in its own substance remaineth alwayes invisible incomprehensible and infinite else could it not be unchangeable We may not therefore imagine that when Christ said This is my body his body then sate both visible to them at the Table and yet was invisible also in the bread or that now it is both visibly conversant in heaven and invisibly contained in the bread 2. From the Article of Ascension Christ ascended truly that is was in his body visibly and locally taken up into heaven so that his body remained not nrr now remaineth on earth but in heaven whence he shall visibly returne to judgement He is not therefore in the bread Or thus we may urge the reason Christs body is finite as being a true body But it is now in heaven Therefore Christs body is not in While they beheld him he was taken up Acts 1.9 Colos 3.1 Seek the things which are above where Christ is The Major also is evident For if the true and very body of Christ be infinite it is on earth was no true body of Christ but apparent and phantasticall because it cannot agree no not to the God-head it selfe to be at one time finite and infinite sensible and insensible and so all those things which are spoken of Christ in the Articles of our Beliefe should not have been done indeed but only should have seemed and appeared to be done and so we should as yet remain in death Now here are two things to be noted 1. That by the argument drawn from the ascension Christs body is not cleane taken out of the Supper as some cavill but only out of the bread For the distance of heaven and earth only hindereth the existence of Christs body both in heaven and in the bread together but not his presence in the Supper to be spirituall eaten by faith For our faith in the word of the promise annexed to the bread and wine beholdeth and imbraceth the body and bloud of Christ and all his benefits there present 2. That the Argument of the Ascension not done but together with the former Argument of the truth of his humane nature overthroweth the opinion of a corporall presence of Christ in the bread For if Christs humane nature might be every-where or present in many places his Ascension could not hinder but that he might at once be both in heaven and in the bread But whereas the humane nature is finite not present in many places nor every-where hence it is that the Argument borrowed from the Article of his Ascension presseth most powerfully and as in the first Supper the consequence derived from the property of his humane nature thus Christs body sits at the Table Therefore it is not in the bread or in the mouth of his Disciples is sound and good so now we necessarily conclude out of the truth of his Ascension thus Christs body is in heaven Therefore it is not in the bread or elsewhere on earth Object It is humane reason alone that judgeth Christs corporall presence in the bread contrary to these Articles of faith Therefore they are not indeed contrary Answ We deny the Antecedent For not reason onely but the Christian faith and Gods Word reacheth us that Christs body is a true humane and finite body and not conversant at once in all or many places and that now since it ascended into heaven it is not in the earth but remaineth and abideth in heaven untill he returne thence to judge the quick and the dead That Christs body then should be present at once in heaven and in the bread is repugnant not to humane reason only but also to Gods Word This indeed is a principle uncontroversed How farre forth we are not to listen to mans reason in divine matters That mans reason in divine matters oppugning Gods Word is not to be regarded but ought to be subject thereunto Notwithstanding it is not simply to be cashiered or discharged no not in controversies of Divinity as if we were to bring a meer brutish and blockish sense to the sifting of the truth of Gods Word but we are to use reason aright to discern therby truth from falshood For to this end was reason given to us men that we should discern by the light of understanding contradictory opinions and fully conceiving what is consonant with Gods Word and what jarreth therewith should applaud and imbrace the one and reject the other If this be not grounded and settled in us there will be no opinion so absurd and impious there will be nothing in the polluted sinks of all Hereticks so filthy and monstrous which may be confuted by holy Scripture For Hereticks and Deceivers will alwayes except against us that their opinions impugne not the truth of Gods Word but that they seeme onely in mans reason so to doe Repl. The Scripture attributeth to Christs body many properties and prerogatives supernaturall or above and beyond nature which are not incident to our bodies as to walke on the waters to be transfigured to be carried up into heaven to pierce and passe through a stone and closed doores to be united to the God-head personally to be made a sacrifice for our sinnes c. Therefore it is no absurdity to attribute unto it presence in heaven and in the bread both at once or even ubiquity it selfe Ans In the Antecedent are many untruths mingled with some truths For the penetration of Christs body through the stone
Lib. 4. Dut. 11. c. Quidam The age and parentage of Consubstantiation This opinion Lombard relateth and testifieth that it was before his time maintained by some but he calleth it a Paradox a strange or wonderfull opinion Guitmund fathereth it on Berengarius after his recantation and termeth it Impanation Others impute it to one Walrame against whom Anselme hath two books extant Some fasten it on Rupert Abb. Tuit who lived not long after Guitmond about the year of the Lord 1124. Petrus de Alliaco Cardinall of Cambray saith In lib. 4. sentent q. 6. art 2. that he had rather defend Consubstantiation the Transubstantiation unlesse the Church of Rome had defined the contrary He lived about the year of our Lord 1416. Lib. de Ca. Babyl At length Luther approving the judgement of this Cardinal of Cambray as himself witnesseth first thought it no article of faith to beleeve that the substance of bread remaineth or remaineth not but either point might be held without heresie Afterwards it seemed more probable unto him that the bread should remaine and the body of Christ should be under in and with the bread And this is now their opinion who name themselves Lutherans Wherefore they interpret Christs words This is my body thus In this with this under this bread is my body and they glory and boast no lesse then the Papists that they retain the letter without any trope or figure And so have they ranked themselves that if they combate with Papists then the particle This noteth with them bread only and the bread it self is the body of Christ If they bend their forces against us whom they call Sacramentaries then the particle This shall not signifie bread only but bread with the body of Christ lodged invisibly therein and the sense shall be This is my body that is This bread and my body lying hid in this bread is my body They illustrate this their glosse with vulgar similies as they call them that Christ when he gave his invisible body in the bread in like manner said This is my body as the Country-man saith of the graine in his sacke This is corne pointing at the sack or the Merchant of the money in his purse This is money pointing at his purse or the Mother of the Infant in his cradle This is my child shewing the cradle only or the Vintner of his wine This is Rhenish wine when he reacheth out the Goblet These formes of speech are noted and observed out of their books and disputations But good men they have that luck which the Poet alotteth unto fooles Fooles when they seeke to avoid an inconvenience Horat. Serm. lib. 1. sat 3. fall into an evill For in place of that absurd miracle of the subsisting of accidents without any subject they have induced another more absurd of the penetration of two bodies and whether we respect the letter or the sense they have wandred departed farther from Christs words then the Papists For the letter thus lieth This that is This bread is my body The sense standeth thus The visible bread broken and distributed is my true and essentiall body given for you It is my true body not by any change of essence and nature as the Papists would have it for bread was not assumed by the Word for us neither was bread given and crucified for us but it is my true body in a mysticall sense and Sacramentall kind of speech according to the interpretation of the sounder antiquity of Paul yea and of Christ himselfe The Transsubstantials glosse is farte wide of this the letter and meaning of Christs words As then the Papists retaine not the letter when in stead of Christs words This is my body they annex this seraphicall or super-angelicall glosse This thing or substance whatsoever undeterminate contained under these formes is my body so much lesse doe these reserve entire the letter and sense of Christs words when instead of them they place their own saying My body is in with under the bread or The bread and the body lying hid invisibly in the bread is my body For neither is the bread alone nor the bread with the body inclosed therein properly Christs body as an empty or full purse is not properly and without all figure of speech termed money Now the phrases they use are too improper and too much unfitting that they would expresse For as for the instances produced by them we know as soone as the Countrey-man Merchant Mother or Vintner speaketh that graine is in the sacke money in the purse an infant in the cradle and wine in the goblet But when these men tell us This is Christs body we know not forth-with that Christs body is in the bread neither can it be proved because an Article of the Christian faith testfieth that it is in heaven Of the Schisme of the Consubstantials LUthers foundation and maine ground at first was those words onely of Christ This is my body Afterwards in a disputation bad with the adversaries of this opinion pinion the 27. and 28. yeere he retired and fled to the Ubiquity and for that one foundation or ground afore-named he assumed four other 1. The personall union of the natures in Christ The right hand of God which is every where 3. The truth of God which cannot lie 4. The three fold manner of the existence of Christs body in any place But being at length repulsed from these holds he betook himselfe againe to Christs words and desired that all disputation of Ubiquity should quite be revoked Notwithstanding since his time some Lutherans by profession finding no sufficient warrant for their cause in Christs words have set Ubiquity on foot againe and at this day account it the best stake in their hedge Three sorts of Lutherans though others utterly disclaime it Hence arose a faction and division among the Consubstantials some are * 1. Simplices simply Lutherans who by Christs words only defend the being of Christs body in the bread and the eating it with the mouth some are * 2. Multipraesentiarii Omnipotentiarii multipresentiarie and omnipotentiarie Lutherans that is such as think Christs body to be present at once in many hosts by reason of the omnipotency really communicated therewith Lastly some are * 3. Omnipraesentiarii Ubiquitarii omnipresentiarie Lutherans who to assoile the presence of Christs body in the bread lay hold on the shield of Ubiquity and teach that Christs body is every where present by vertue of the union with the Word and therefore is present in the bread both before and after the use thereof in the Supper and that the right of consecration doth effect only that it be eaten in the bread Of this our young Divines for the understanding of this controverfie may not be ignorant For hereby they perceive that at this day there are two maine columnes or pillars erected to under-prop Consubstantiation namely The two principall
is conveyed by an Angel into heaven lyeth corporally under the formes of bread and wine is really carried up and downe in the hands of the Minister and received by the mouth of the Communicants These forgeries are repugnant to the Articles of Faith the Incarnation the Ascension and Intercession and the returne of Christ unto Judgement and to the nature of Sacraments in which the signes must needs remaine and not lose their nature 3. The Lords Supper teacheth us That Christ is to be worshipped in heaven at the right hand of his Father For it overthroweth not but establisheth and ratifieth the Articles of Faith and doctrine of the whole Gospel which sheweth that Christ is to be sought and worshipped Above Colos 3.2 Seek the things which are above where Christ sitteth at the right hand of God Acts 7.55 And Stephen when he was stoned saw Christ and worshipped him Above standing at the right hand of God The ancient Church also sang in their Liturgy or common Service and Prayer Sursum corda Wee lift up our hearts unto the Lord. On the other side the Masse telleth us That Christ is to be worshipped in the bread which adoration and worship questionlesse is idolatrous For To worship Christ in the bread is to direct our worship in soule minde cogitation and as much as may be in the motion of our bodies to the place in which the bread is and turning hereto to yield reverence unto Christ as if he were present there more than else-where So of old they worshipped God at the Arke turning thereto with their minds and as much as might be with their externall grace and inclination of body That this is idolatry we prove 1. Because no creature hath power to tie the worship of God to any thing or place Exod. 25.22 29.42 1 King 8.33 12.29 10 31. Dan 9.11 2 Kings 12.13 Amos 4.4 wherein God hath not commanded by expresse word himselfe to be worshipped and wherein God hath not promised to heare us And hereby is the cause of that difference plainly seen why the Jews directing their prayer to the Propitiatory or Mercy-seat did notwithstanding withall in spirit worship the true God and were by promise from him assured to be heard but worshipping in Dan and in Bethel and in the high places and in the Temple of Samaria were Idolaters not knowing what they worshipped and the cause of this thing is more at large declared 1 Kings 17.9 2. Because in the New Testament all worship which is tyed to any certain place on earth is utterly taken away and spirituall worship only required stirred and kindled by the holy Ghost and done with a true faith and knowledge of God Joh. 4.21 22 23. So Christ teacheth Yee worship that which yee know not wee worship that which wee know But the houre cometh when ye shall neither in this mountaine nor at Jerusalem worship the Father But the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and truth Whereas Christ saith in spirit not in this mountaine nor at Jerusalem he doth plainly take away worship tied and restrained to any certaine place on earth Wherefore we must also take away and have in detestation this impious invention of Christs corporall presence in the Mass or in the bread and wine which is the foundation of idolatrous adoration or worship For this being put that Christ is in body present in the bread whether it be said to be done by Transubstantiation or Consubstantiation the Popish adoration standeth fast For as in ancient times before the Ascension it was not only lawfull but behoovefull also to worship Christ wheresoever he was so now also if he be in the bread he must be worshipped in the bread whether he be there seen or not seen For much more were we to beleeve the voice of God then any sense of ours if it expressed and specified any such matter Likewise of the contrary side the presence of Christs body in the bread is taken away if we take away by Gods commandement this foule and shamefull Popish adoration of Christs body lying covertly by their judgements under the formes of Bread and Wine Here the Ubiquiraries except against us on their behalfe that Christ is present in the bread not to be worshipped but to be eaten and that he commanded not himself to be adored but to be eaten Answ In both these asseraions they conclude no more then that which is in controversie for Christ commanded neither of these If he be in the bread he must there be worshipped because of the generall commandement Let all the holy Angels of God worship him Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God They therefore imagine Christ in the bread and yet say it is not lawfull to worship him which is an open deceit and mockery Wherefore Musculus and others to salve this sore are content to fall downe before the Bread and worship Christ therein But Heshusius replyeth against us thus The Divinity is not adored in all the creatures though it be present in all Therefore neither is it necessary that the humanity should be adored in the bread though it be corporally present therein Ans The examples are not alike The adoration of the Divinity is not tyed to all creatures but it is tyed to the humanity assumed as to a proper peculiar Temple Wheresoever then Christs humanity is there the Divinity will be worshipped in it and with it And indeed by this their own maine argument The Ubiquity of Christs manhood confuted by the Ubiquitaries own argument the Ubiquity of Christs manhood is quite overthrowne For seeing the manhood is not to be worshipped in all creatures and every-where it followeth that it is not present in all peares apples ropes cheeses c. as the Ubiquitaries write thereof These differences did D. Vrsine in the yeare of our Lord 1569. thus inlarge and deliver 1. The Supper testifieth that Christs onely sacrifice justifieth The Masse-Priests say that the Masse justifieth for the very worke done as they use to speake that is through the externall rite and action 2. The Supper teacheth us that Christ redeemed us by offering himselfe for us The Masse-Priests say that we are redeemed by Christ offered by them 3. The Supper telleth us that our salvation is perfected by Christs owne sacrifice The Masse-mongers report that it is perfected by infinite numbers of Masses 4. The Supper instructech us how we are ingraffed into Christ by faith by means of the holy Ghost The Masse falsly feigneth that Christ entreth into us corporally or wee are ingraffed into Christ by his corporall conveyance into us 5. The Supper teacheth us that Christ having ended his sacrifice ascended into heaven Our Massemongers tell us that he in his body is on the Aliar 6. In the Supper bread and wine remaine and change not their substance because Sacraments retaine and change not the substance of the signe The Masse-Priests declare unto us that
the substance of bread and wine is quite abolished and the accidents onely remaine 7. The end of the Supper is the confirmation of faith in Christ and his one onely sacrifice The end of the Masse is a confirmation of that opinion of workes meritorious for their very working and performance and a deniall of Christs sacrifice 8. The Supper teacheth us that Christ is to be adored above in heaven The Masse-mongers adore him under the formes of bread and wine These differences prove that the Popish Masse in the foundation and ground thereof is nothing else but a deniall of CHRISTS onely sacrifice and an horrible Idolatry They further point out unto us many causes for which the Popish Masse ought to be suppressed abolished and abandoned far out of the Church Nine causes why the Masse is to be abolished of which are these here expressed 1. The Popish Masse is a manifold corrupting or rather abolishing of the whole rite instituted by Christ For it taketh away the cup from the people and admitteth many childish toyes unknowne to the Apostles and never practised by religious antiquity when as notwithstanding no creature hath any power to institute any Sacraments or to change and abolish the constitutions and ordinances of God 2. The Masse taketh away the signe and Sacrament it selfe because it transformeth the signe into the thing signified For it denieth that there is any bread and graine remaining but saith it is the flesh and bloud of Christ substantially which is flat repugnant to the nature of a Sacrament which admitteth not that the substance of the signes be abolished nor requireth a physicall connexion of the signes and things signified and therefore no transubstantiation or corporall presence in the Supper but leadeth us unto Christ crucified and now reigning in heaven and thence communicating himselfe unto us 3. The opinion of Merit in the worke done is grounded on the Masse For the Masse-Priests feigne that the Masse is a propitiatory sacrifice which for its own worth doth merit even by the worke it selfe wrought that is through the externall right and action both for him that celebrateth and for others remission of sins Whereas even Moses sacrifices had not this property or power but the only sacrifice of the Son of God once offered for us whereunto the Lords Supper leadeth and directeth us and from which the Masse with-draweth us In what sense the Fathers call the Supper a sacrifice The Fathers indeed sometimes call a supper a Sacrifice and so it is but an Eucharisticall or thanksgiving sacrifice not a propitiatory sacrifice as the Papists dreame And the Supper verily is even that same sacrifice which Christ offered in such sort as the bread is that body which Christ gave for us but sacramentally But our Masse-Priests will have the Masse to be not the same sacrifice which Christ offered but diverse and different from it For they terme it a sacrifice without blord whereby is obtained remission of sins Therefore in very truth they deny Christs bloody sacrifice whilst they deny that Christ hath perfectly merited remission of sinnes and invent another sacrifice for the purging of sin howsoever in words they professe that they offer no other sacrifice then that which Christ offered For it is one thing for the same sacrifice to be often offered which cannot be verified of Christs sacrifice and another thing for one sacrifice to be once offered and that sufficient to take away all sins which the Scripture affirmeth of Christs sacrifice For these speeches are contradictory This sacrifice alone is sufficient for remission of sins and This sacrifice with others is offered for sins 4. In this errour another lurketh whereas they beare us in hand that by their Masses they are able to obtaine remission of sins and redemption of soules for such as are absent dead or in Purgatory though Gods word contrariwise reach that we shall be cloathed in heaven if we be found cloathed and not naked on earth and that we shall be judged as we are found in our departure out of this life Cont. Demet. For saith Cyprian When we are once deceased and have departed this life there is no place for repentance no effect of satisfaction here life is either lost or gained here we procure eternall salvation by our worship of God and fruit of faith 5. Hereof also is hatched another fancy seeing they feigne that by that worke of offering the sacrifice in the Masse they do not only merit remission of sins but other benefits also as healing of sick men sheep horses oxen swine c. Wherefore they feigne that in the Masse corporall blessings and different in kinde from those which are promised in the Gospel and sealed by the Sacraments are imparted unto them 6. The Masse is repugnant to Christs Priest-hood because he is the onely High Priest who hath power to offer himselfe The Pope with his companions most impudently pulleth this honour to himself For these deceivers and lying men feigne with great contumely and despite to Christ that they offer againe Christ unto the Father and that they alone are worthy men to offer Christ unto his Father when yet no man no Angel neither any creature is of that dignity and worthinesse as that he may sacrifice the Sonne of God For the Priest is above the sacrifice they therefore who will be the Priests to offer Christ mount and lift themselves above him Object The Priests slay not but offer only and present the Son unto the Father that for his sake he may remit us our sinnes and so they only apply that one and only sacrifice of Christ Ans It is enough that they say that they offer Christ with their hands For it remaineth that they make themselves Priests and so place themselves above Christ the Son of God Neither is it materiall that they deny that they slay Christ Many things were offered of old by the Priests which were not slain neither were of that quality but were only offered as cakes and liquid offerings and burnt offerings and other such like The Jewes indeed slew Christ but it cannot thence be affirmed that they did sacrifice him but Christ himselfe was willingly slaine and therefore sacrificed himselfe Christ through the eternall spirit offered himselfe without spot to God Heb 9 1â— Heb. 9.28 and verily he offered himselfe once a sacrifice unto his Father for us Christ was once offered to take away the sins of many and to them that looke for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation Christ after he had offered one sacrifice for sins Heb. 10.12 A propitiatory sacrifice cannot be without bloud sitteth for ever at the right hand of God Now the Papists contrary to these manifest places of Scripture will have Christ to be often offered in the Masse For they say they sacrifice him indeed but slay him not But a propitiatory sacrifice cannot be without slaughter for Without shedding of
desired to eate this Passeover with you Wherefore from the nature and subject of Sacraments is drawne this demonstrative proofe What God hath instituted for his houshold and children that hypocrites and aliens from the Church ought not to receive 2. Paul interdicteth all the wicked without any exception from coming unto this holy Supper by words authentick in which namely he commandeth that every man try and examine himselfe and so eat of that bread and drink of that cup. 3. Because when hypocrites wicked men presse and thrust forwards themselves unto this mystery they eat and drink their owne judgement and become guilty of Christs body and bloud For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily eateth and drinketh his owne damnation 4. Unto these may be adjoyned also generall restimonies of Scripture whereby unbeleevers are forbidden to come unto the Supper Mat. 5.24 Esay 66.3 Rom. 2.25 and the use of the Sacraments frequented by irrepentant and impenitent men condemned Leave there thine offering before the altar first be reconciled to thy brother and then come and offer thy gift He that killeth a bullock is as if he slew a man If thou be a trasgressour of the Law thy circumcision is made uncircumcision Object 1. God commandeth that all use the Sacraments and Christ saith Take drink ye all of this therefore if wicked men approach unto the Lords Table they offend not Answ To the Antecedent we answer that God indeed injoyneth all men the Sacraments namely the lawful and right use which is not without faith and repentance He commandeth that all be baptized and resort unto the Supper but he commandeth farther that all beleeve and repent Repent and be baptized Acts 2.38 1 Cor. 11 28. Let every man examine himselfe Object 2. We are all unworthy Therefore all must abstaine Ans To the Antecedent By nature and in our selves we are all unworthy but we are made worthy by the grace of Christ if we bring faith and a good conscience In Johan tract Augustine saith Come with boldnesse it is bread and not poyson No mans unworthinesse therefore ought to with-draw and with-hold him because all that bring faith and repentance are worthy To him will I look that is poore and of a contrite spirit Esay 66.2 and trembleth at my words Object 3. They who avoid the profaning of the Lords Supper doe well But they who refraine from the Lords Supper in respect of some hatred they beare to others or for some other sins avoid the profaning of the Supper Therefore they doe well Ans The Major must be distinguished They who avoid the profaning of the Supper doe well if they avoid it in such sort as they ought namely by repenting themselves of those sinnes which have beene the causes of their refraining but they doe very ill who avoid it persevering in their sinnes hypocrisie and hatred For these men heap sin upon sin and adde contempt to their former profanation and the rule is sound that Evill is not to be done that good may come thereof 2. What the wicked receive in the Lords Supper Eight proofs that the wicked receive nothing but the bare signes in the Supper THe wicked and hypocrites coming to the Lords Supper receive not the things signified to wit Christs body and bloud but the bare signes of bread and wine and those to their judgement and damnation This is proved John 6.56 57. 1. From the definition of eating To eat Christ is through faith to be made partakers of his merit efficacy and benefits as it is said He that eateth me liveth by me dwelleth in me and I in him But the wicked and unfaithfull are not partakers of Christ Therefore they ear not Christ 2. From the manner and instrument of eating Christs body is eaten by faith alone For we apprehend Christ with his benefits by faith only and Christs body is the meat and food of the soule not of the belly of the heart not of the mouth as it is well expressed in Luthers Catechisme These words FOR YOV require beleeving or faithfull hearts But the wicked and hypocrites are destitute of faith Therefore they receive not Christs body 3. Christ in the Supper offereth his body to be eaten of them onely for whom he offered himselfe on the Crosse But he offered himselfe on the Crosse for the faithfull only not for the wicked and hypocrites I pray not for the world but for them which beleeve This is my body John 17.9 which is given for you John 6.36 4. Christs body is the quickning bread which whosoever receiveth receiveth life therewithall For Christs spirit is not separate from his body He that eateth my flesh dwelleth in me and I in him But the wicked receiving the signes receive not life Therefore the wicked receive the signes without the things signified 5. The unfaithfull eat and drink their own damnation Therefore the doe not eat Christs body and bloud The argument is of force by the rule of Contraries For To eat their own damnation is through incredulity and abusing of the Sacraments What is to eate his owne damnation to be abalienated and repelled from Christ and all his blessings or through abusing of the Sacraments being received without faith and repentance grievously to offend God and so to draw upon themselves temporall and everlasting punishment except they repent What it is to eate Christ Contrariwise To eat Christ is through faith to be made partakers of his merit efficacie and benefits For no man can eat Christ and not withall be made by faith partaker of his merit efficacie and gifts No man therefore can both eat Christ and withall eat his own damnation 1 Cor. 10.11 6. When Paul saith Yee cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and of the table of Devils then bereaves he the wicked of some thing in the Lords Table whereof they can have no part But they at the Lords Table partake of the signes bread and wine Therefore he depriveth them of the participation of Christs body and bloud the things signified Object Ye cannot that is with a good conscience and to salvation Ans This is a false glosse For the Apostle reasoneth not from an inconvenience but from an impossibility Ye ought not to partake with them that sacrifice to Idols why because this is to partake with Devils But it is impossible that yee should be partakers of the Table of the Devils Mat. 6.24 and of the Lords Table because soothly it is impossible to serve two Masters as Christ speaketh No man can serve two Masters Ye cannot serve God and Mammon so the Apostle also speaketh in the same sense Ye cannot be partakers of the Lords Table and of the table of Devils Mat. 15.25 7. Christ saith It is not meet to cast the childrens bread unto dogs But Christs body is the childrens bread that is the bread of the faithfull Mat. 7.6 Therefore Christ casteth not
his body to dogs to wit to the wicked contrary to his own doctrine Give not holy things to dogs nor cast pearles to swine August lib. 21. c. 25. de Civit. Dei in lo. tract 26. 59. in senten Prosp c. 3.39 Ambros Serm. de coena 8. From the authority of Fathers who have preached the same doctrine Austine and Prosper Ambrose saith Although the Sacraments or signes suffer themselves to be taken and touched by the unworthie yet these men cannot be partakers of the spirit whose infidelity or unworthinesse contradicteth so great holinesse And a little after But as for those who in word only with dry hearts and minds that is without affection and without understanding are present at these sacred mysteries or further be partakers of the gifts therein they indeed lick the rocke but they neither suck honey thence nor oyle because they are not quickned with any sweetnesse of charity or fatnesse of sanctity of the holy Ghost they neither judge themselves nor discerne the Sacraments but unreverently frequent and use these his holy gifts and blessings as common meats and impudently intrude themselves into the Lords Table in a filthy garment for whom it had been better with a milstone about their neck to have been drowned in the sea then with an uncleane conscience to have taken one morsell at the Lords hands who to this very day createth sanctifieth blesseth and divideth to godly receivers his true and sacred body The causes for which the wicked are said to cate unto themselves damnation Now for these causes the wicked eat unto themselves and draw on themselves damnation 1. Because they profane the signes and by consequent the things signified by laying hold on those things which are not instituted for them but for the Disciples of Christ 2. Because they profane the Covenant and Testament of God by taking unto themselves the signes and tokens of the Covenant They will seeme to be in league with God whereas they are in league with the Devill and not with God whom by this meanes they would as much as in them lieth make the Father of the wicked 3. Because they discerne not the Lords body and tread under foot the bloud of Christ His benefits indeed are offered unto them but they receive them not with faith and so mock God while they professe that they receive the benefits of Christ when as they doe or minde nothing lesse and adde this new offence to their other sinnes 4. Because they condemne themselves by their owne judgement For approaching unto the Lords Table they professe that they accept of this doctrine and doe beleeve no salvation to be without Christ and yet in the meane season are conscious unto themselves that they are hypocrites and so condemn themselves Therefore false is their objection who say thus The wicked eat damnation unto themselves Therefore they eat Christs body Ans Nay rather the contrary followeth They eat damnation Therefore not Christs body For To eat Christ and To eat damnation are contraries which cannot stand together Repl. 1. They eat unworthily Therefore they eat Answ I grant they eat but they eat not Christ For the text saith expresly Whosoever shall eat this bread unworthily 1 Cor. 11.7 Repl. Christ is not a Saviour only but a Judge also Answ Hee is a Judge not of them by whom he is eaten but of them of whom hee is despised and rejected For of them which eat he saith He which eateth mee shall live by mee John 6.57 But of them which despise him he proclaimeth Depart from me all ye that work iniquity Matt. 7.23 As therefore the Gospel being beleeved is the savour of life unto life and being despised is the savour of death unto death So Christ being eaten quickeneth but being contemned judgeth the eater But he is then despised when in the word and sacraments he is offered to the unfaithfull but is refused or rejected through infidelity Repl. 3. They are guilty of Christs body Therefore they eat it Ans The cause of their guilt is not the eating of Christ but the eating of the bread without Christ because it is said Hee that eateth of this bread unworthily The abuse then of the signe is the contempt of Christ as the defacing of the Kings Charter or Seal is an injury to the Prince himself and a matter of treason Repl. 4. But how eat the wicked damnation unto themselves seeing it is a good work to receive the Sacrament Ans It is a good work by it self but not unto the wicked The receiving of the Sacrament is a good work when the true and right use is adjoyned otherwise it is made not a commanded but a forbidden work as also God saith He that killeth a bullocke Isa 66.3 is as if he slew a man So likewise Paul This is not to eat the Lords body And again 1 Cor. 11.20 Rom. 2.26 If thou be a transgresser of the law thy circumcision is made uncircumcision Else might wee thus conclude The receiving of Christs body is a good work Therefore the wicked by that receit cannot be made guilty of Christs body 3. What the right and lawfull use of the Supper is THe right and lawfull use of the Supper is When the faithfull receive in the Church the Lords bread and his cup and shew forth his death to this end that this receiving may be a pledge of their union with Christ and an application of the whole benefit of our redemption and salvation It consisteth in three things 1. When the rites and ceremonies instituted of Christ are retained and observed yet so that they be not observed of one or two privately buâ— in a convenient and lawfull assembly of the Church whether great or small and the rites instituted are That the Lords bread be broken distributed and received and the Lords cup given to all that communicate in remembrance of Christs death 2. When the rights are observed of those persons for whom Christ did institute them that is when the bread and wine is not distributed and received of others then of whom the Lord would have it received namely not of his enemies but of his â—isciples which are the faithfull For the observing of the rite without faith and repentance is not the use but the abuse of it 3. When the Supper is received and the whole action directed to the right end appointed by Christ which is in commemoration and remembrance of the Lords death and for confirmation of our faith and to shew our thankefulnesse Quest 82. Are they also to be admitted to the Supper who in confession and life declare themselves to be unbeleevers and ungodly Ans No. For by that means the Covenant of God is profaned and the wrath of God is stirred up against the whole assembly a 1 Cor. 11.20 34. Isa 1.1 c. 66.3 Jerem. 21. Psa 50.16 c. wherefore the Church by the commandement of Christ
and his Apostles using the keyes of the kingdome of heaven ought to drive them from the Supper till they shall repent and change their manners The Explication Who are to be admitted to the Supper THey are to be admitted of the Church to the Lords Supper 1. Who are of a fit age to prove themselves and to re-call to minde and meditate on the Lords death according to that commandement Do this in remembrance of me Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of this bread Shew forth the Lords death till he come Luke 22.19 1 Cor. 11 2â— 28. Therefore the infants of the Church though they be reckoned among the faithfull yet they are exempted from the use of the Sacrament 2. Who are baptised and by baptisme made members of the Church For in the Supper the covenant plighted with God in baptism is renewed Therefore in old time none might eat of the Passeover except hee were first circumcised So that Turks Jewes and other aliants from the Church are to be debarred of the Supper 3. Who in words and deeds professe true repentance and faith or they who expresse and shew a profession of faith and repentance in the actions of their life whether they doe this truly and sincerely or of secret and hidden hypocrisie For of things concealed the Church judgeth not Therefore it admitteth all whom it may judge to be Christs members that is whom it heareth and seeth professing faith and repentance in publick confession and outward actions whether they be truly godly or hypocrites not yet unmasked But they are not to be admitted whosoever simply do avouch that they beleeve all things and yet live wickedly for hee that saith he beleeveth and hath not works is a liar and denieth in deed that which he affirmeth in words according to that of the Apostle Tâ—â— 1. â—6 They professe that they know God but by their works they deny him and are abominable and disobedient and to every good work reprobate So S. James sheweth James 2.20 Why they onely who professe faith and repentance are to be admitted to the Supper That faith which is without works is dead The reasons why they are to be admitted onely who both by their profession and life professe faith and repentance are these Profaning of Gods covenant What it is to profane Gods covenant Gods covenant two wayes profaned Because the Church should profane Gods covenant if it should admit unbeleevers and men impenitent For he that doth a thing and he that consenteth unto it are both obnoxious to the same law To profane the Covenant of God is to commend and acknowledge them for the confederates or friends and fellows of God who are Gods enemies and so to make God such a one as hath entered a covenant and is in league with hypocrites and wicked men Now the covenant of God is two wayes profaned namely as well by communicating and imparting the signe of the covenant to them unto whom God promiseth nothing as by receiving and using the signes without faith and repentance For not only they profane the covenant who being as yet impenitent take the signes of the covenant unto them but they also who wittingly and willingly give the signes unto those whom God hath shut from his covenant They make therefore God a fellow and friend of the wicked and the sons of the divell they make the sons of God whosoever reach the signes to the wicked Fear of Gods wâ—ath They are not to be admitted to the Supper who professe not faith and repentance both in life and confession because If such should be admitted the Church should stir up the anger of God against her self as of whom wittingly and willingly this should be committed Now that by this means the wrath of God is stirred up against the Church 1 Cor. 11.31 the Apostle sufficiently witnesseth saying For this cause many are weak and sick among you and many sleep For if we would judge our selves we should not be judged God therefore is angry with the consenters or winkers at the profanation of the Sacrament and so punisheth them because he punisheth the wicked whom they consenting thereto admitted for by both the Supper of the Lord is alike profaned Christs commandement Christ hath commanded that the wicked be not admitted And if any deny that any such commandement is extant yet the substance and tenour of the commandement shall be easily proved For Christ instituted his Supper for his disciples and to them alone he said Iuke 22.15 17 19 20. I have earnestly desired to eat this passeover with you Take this and part it among you This is my body which is given for you This cup is the new Testament in my bloud which is shed for you Wherefore the Supper was instituted for Christs disciples only all others for whom Christ died not are excluded To these three reasons we may here adde a fourth 4. This is an evident demonstration They who deny the faith are not to be accounted for members no not of the visible Church But all that refuse to repent deny the faith according to that saying of the Apostle They professe that they know God but by works they deny him Tit. 1.16 and are abominable and disobedient and to every good work reprobate Therefore they who refuse to repent are not to be reckoned members no not of the visible Church and therefore are not to be admitted to the Sacraments of the Church but to be secluded as aliants from them untill they repent and change their evill manners But yet for all this those hypocrites are to be admitted together with the godly unto the Supper who are not as yet manifested because they professe in confession and outward actions faith and repentance But none ought to approach thither but true beleevers for these only excepted all others yea even those hypocrites which are not as yet manifested eat and drink unto themselves damnation and profane the Lords sacred Supper Object The Church profaneth the covenant if it admit the impenitent Answ To the Antecedent we answer that the Church sinneth not in admitting hypocrites to wit as yet concealed and not unmasked to the view of the world seeing the Church is forced to acknowledge them for sincere members who confesse with their mouthes and counterfeit repentance It should sin indeed if wittingly and willingly it admitted open and professed hypocrites which in word or deed deny faith and repentance Rep. But many impenitent persons intrude themselves and profane the covenant especially where excommunication a part of Church discipline flourisheth not and these the Church admitteth without sin Therefore it offendeth not in admitting others which deny repentance Ans The Church herein sinneth not not because it is no sin to admit the unrepentant but because it admitteth them without knowledge that they are such But the impenitent persons themselves who presse unto this table profane the
him come and observe it and he shall be as one that is born in the land For no uncircumcised person shall eat thereof 3. The allegories or resemblances between Christ and the Paschal lamb FOr confirmation and illustration of the principall end of the passeover the consideration of the resemblances of such rites as God prescribed to be observed in the killing and eating the Paschall lamb may much availe A Collation of the type and the thing signified by the type THE TYPE WAS THE THING SIGNIFIED IS 1. A Lamb out of the flock 1. Christ very or true man Isa 53. John 1. 2. Without blemish set apart 2 Without sin Isa 53. Heb. 7. 3. To be slain and rosted 3. Who suffered and died 1 Cor. 5. 4. Without breaking any bone 4. Without having his bones broken John 19. 5. About evening 5. In the end of the world Heb. 1. 9. 6. The posts were to be sprinkled witâ— his bloud 6. His satisfaction was imputed unto us Isa 53. Rom. 3. 7. That the Destroyer might passe over the Israelites housâ—s 7. That we might be delivered from everlasting death Heb 2. 8. He was to be eaten and that in every family 8. There must be in man an applying of this death of Christ to himselfe by faith Rom. 1. John 6. 9. He was to be eaten all 9. This application must be according to all the Articles of faith 2 Tim. 3. 10. Without leavened bread 10. Without hypocrisie 1 Cor. 5. 11. With sowre herbs 11. With patience of the crosse Matt. 10. 12. Hastily and in the habit of travellers 12. With a desire of profiting and expectation of an heavenly life Matth. 13. Heb. 13. 13. Of the Circumcised alone 13. The regenerate onely eat him and hee is profitable to them alone and they onely take not the Sacraments to their condemnation Joh. 6. Heb. 13. 1 Cor. 11. 4. Whether the ancient passeover be now abrogated THat the ancient passeover is now by Christs coming abrogated with all other types whatsoever prefiguring the Messias to come is cleer 1. Out of the whole disputation of the Apostle to the Hebrews touching the abolishment of the legall shadowes Heb. 7.12 which abolishment is now performed in the New Testament If the priesthood be changed then of necessity must there be a change of the law In that he saith a New Testament hee hath abrogated the Old 2. From the fulfilling and performance of those legall shadows These things were done that the Scripture should be fulfilled Not a bone of him shall be broken John 19.36 Christ our passeover is sacrificed for us 1 Cor. 5.7 3. From the substituting of the New Testament in place thereof For Christ when he was ready to die and to sacrifice himselfe as the true Passeover ended the ceremony of the Paschall lamb with a solemn banquet and thenceforth instituted and ordained a Supper to be observed by his Church in place thereof I have desired to eat this passeover with you before I suffer Luke 22.15 19. Doe this in remembrance of mee Where hee commandeth that we celebrate and solemnize the supper in memory of him not the ancient passeover As then Baptism succeeded Circumcision so the Lords Supper succeeded the Passeover in the new Testament Certain conclusions of the Supper 1. THe Supper of the Lord is a sacrament of the new Testament wherein according to the commandement of Christ Bread and Wine is distributed and received in the assembly of the faithfull in remembrance of Christ which is that Christ might testifie unto us that he feedeth us with his body and bloud delivered and shed for us to eternall life and that we also might for these his benefits give solemn thanks unto him 2. The first and principall end and use of the Lords Supper is That Christ might therein testifie unto us that he died for us and doth feed us with his bloud and body unto everlasting life that so by this restification he might cherish and increase in us our faith and so consequently this spirituall food and nourishment The second end is thanksgiving for these benefits of Christ and our publick and solemn profession of them and our duty towards Christ The third is the distinguishing of the Church from other sects The fourth that it might be a bond of mutuall love and dilection The fifth that it might be a bond of our assemblies and meetings 3. That first end and use which is the confirmation of our faith in Christ the Supper of the Lord hath because Christ himself giveth this bread and drink by the hands of his Ministers to be a memoriall of him that is to admonish and put us in remembrance by this signe as by his visible word that he died for us and is the food of eternall life unto us while he maketh us his members both because he hath annexed a promise to this rite that he will feed those who eat this bread in remembrance of him with his own body and bloud when he saith This is my body and also because the holy Ghost doth by this visible testimony move our minds and hearts more firmly to beleeve the promise of the Gospel 4. There is then in the Lords Supper a double meat and drinke one externall visible terrene namely bread and wine and another internall There is also a double eating and receiving an externall and signifying which is the corporall receiving of the bread and wine that is which is performed by the hands mouth and senses of the body and an internall invisible and signified which is the fruition of Christs death and a spirituall ingraffing into Christs body that is which is not performed by the hands and mouth of the body but by the spirit and faith Lastly there is a double administer and dispenser of this meat and drink an externall of the externall which is the Minister of the Church delivering by his hand bread and wine and an internall of the internall meat which is Christ himself feeding us by his body and bloud 5. Not the body and bloud of Christ but the bread and wine are the signs which serve for confirmation of our faith for the body and bloud of Christ are received that we may live for ever But the bread and wine are received that we may be confirmed and assured of that heavenly food and daily more and more injoy it 6. Neither is the bread changed into the body of Christ nor the wine into the bloud of Christ neither doth the body and bloud of Christ succeed in their place they being abolished neither is Christs body substantially present in the bread or under the bread or where the bread is but in the right use of the Lords Supper the holy Ghost useth this symbole as an instrument to stir up faith in us by which he more and more dwelleth in us ingraffeth us into Christ and maketh us through him to be just and righteous and to draw eternall life from
ground and foundation of Christian doctrine and to have a purpose to obey it but those must be repelled who will not desist either from their errours and blasphemies or from manifest sins against their conscience being admonished by the Church and convicted of errour 16. The Pope hath corruptly taken away the breaking of the bread from the rite of the Supper and bereaved the people of the use of the cup. Corruptly also hath he transformed the Supper of the Lord with adding so many ceremonies not delivered by the Apostles into a theatricall or pageant-like Masse that is into a Jewish superstition and stage-like rounds and conveyances But more wicked and idolatrous inventions are these That the Masse is a propitiatory sacrifice wherein Christ is offered by the Masse-priests for the quick and the dead and is by the force of consecration substantially present and abideth so long as those forms of bread and wine remain uncorrupted and further doth bestow the grace of God and other benefits upon them for whom he is offered of whom also he is eaten with the mouth of their body yea though they have no good inward motion in them and lastly is being treasured and laid up and carried about under those forms to be worshipped In respect of these foul monsters it is necessary that the Masse be quite and clean abolished out of the Christian Church In summe they are these 1. Transubstantiation 2. Bread-worship 3. Sacrifice 4. Maiming of Christs Supper THE APPENDIX OR ADDITION ADJOYNING unto the former Treatise of the Supper Certain principall arguments of the Consubstantiaries against the sincere doctrine of the Lords Supper and the Sacramentaries as they call them together with a refutation of them 1. THe errours of the Sacramentaries say they are that there are but bare signes and symboles only in the Supper Ans We teach that the things signified are together with the signes in the right use exhibited and communicated albeit not corporally but in such sort as is agreeable unto Sacraments 2. The Sacramentaries say that Christ is present only according to his power and efficacie Ans We teach that he is present and united with us by the holy Ghost albeit his body be far absent from us like as whole Christ also is present with his ministery though diversly according to the one nature 3. The Sacramentaries say they affirm that an imaginary figurative or spirituall body of Christ is present not his essentiall body Ans We never spake of an imaginary body but of the true flesh of Christ which is present with us although it remain in heaven Moreover we say that we receive the bread and body but both after a manner proper to each 4. The Sacramentaries say they affirm that the true body of Christ which hung on the crosse and his very bloud which was shed for us is distributed and is spiritually received of those only who are worthy receivers as for the unworthy they receive nothing besides the bare signes unto their condemnation Ans All this we grant as being agreeing to the word of God the nature of sacraments the analogie of faith and the communion of the faithfull Certaine arguments of the Consubstantiaries whereby they goe about to overthrow our doctrine of the Lords Supper together with the refutation of them 1. THe words of the institution are open and plain This is my body This is my bloud Ans They alledge these words against themselves for they say That the body of Christ is received really in under with the bread when Christ saith that the very bread is the body Wherefore they doe a double injury unto the Church First while they thrust upon the Church their own words for Christs Secondly while they imagine that the Church perceiveth not these speeches to be divers In the bread is my body and The bread is my body They accuse Christ also for a liar for they deny that the bread is his body but that his body is in the bread Let them look therefore unto it how they will answer Christ at the last judgment for this blasphemy and reproach The Papists also do more retain the very words of Christ But these retain not the words but follow the sense and meaning Wee must see therefore which part followeth it Ours shall be proved in the end Repl. Christ addeth an exposition of his mind Which is given for you and Which is shed for you Ans First this is a begging of that which is in question for they take as granted that the bread is properly called the body which yet lieth upon them to prove for it is a sacramentall manner of speaking Secondly we return their own reason upon them by inverting it thus The body of Christ properly so called was given for us But the bread was not given for us Therefore the bread is not the body properly so called Likewise as the bread is the body broken so the breaking of the bread is the breaking of the body But the breaking of the body is the crucifying thereof Therefore the bread broken is but sacramentally and by representation the body broken 2. They reason from the authour who said it and is true Ans This is also a begging of that which is in question They must prove that Christ said his body was in under with the bread And further a man may speak figuratively and yet speak perspicuously and plainly Repl. He is also omnipotent therefore he is able to be every-where and so in the bread Ans Albeit he were able to bring to passe that two flat repugnant things should be true together yet will hee not do it Again God is not able to work contradictories or things flat repugnant because he is true Now to will those things which are contradictory argueth a lyar Wherefore we deny not the truth and omnipotency of God but these mens lies nay rather we defend Gods truth affirming that God doth that which he spake But they oppugne it making contrary wils to be in God Repl. Christs body hath many prerogatives not agreeable to our bodies as that he was born of a Virgin walked on the sea was at one time and together in the grave in hell and in paradise and passed thorow the gates when they were fast shut Ans These examples are partly not matches and partly false For this may agree unto a creature to walk on the waters as it did to Peter to passe thorow the gates shut as it is agreeable to the nature of a spirit Again these examples are not matches nor of the same quality with that which is in question because these do not imply a contradiction For when he is said to be born of a Virgin he is not said withall not to be born of a Virgin But to be both finite and infinite as they will have Christs body who consubstantiate it with the bread these imply a contradiction Now it is false that they say that he passed thorow the gates shut
belongeth hither also the doctrine of Justification because in the Supper no other justice or righteousnesse is to be sought for but by the bloud of Christ 6. The manner how we eat it is not to be defined Ans They commit a double fault in so saying 1. When they deny that the manner is to be defined and so contradict and gainsay the Scripture which defineth it and sheweth that it is spirituall and that there is wrought an union with Christ by faith through the holy Ghost 2. They themselves define the manner as it cleerly appeareth by their writing 7. The saying of Durandus is true We hear the words wee perceive the motions we know not the manner we beleeve the presence Ans Durandus maketh nought either for you or against us or for himself because he was a Papist And again if his saying be rightly understood we may admit it We hear the words This is my body not that we eat with our mouth the body of Christ in the bread We perceive the motions that is we perceive the bread to enter into our mouth not the body of Christ Wee know not the manner that is not perfectly to wit after what manner the holy Ghost is every where whole in Christ and in all the Saints and how he uniteth us in Christ We beleeve the presence namely such as is the eating and as is the union of the members and in the head 8. Wee teach this only That the body and bloud of Christ is truly substantially and naturally exhibited Wee grant that wee eate the true body of Christ So then is their disputation vaine and frivolous 1. Because they confesse that wee are made partakers of the true body of Christ and that wee must not question of the manner for this wee grant 2. Because the reasons and refutation which they bring are of no weight or moment Certain reasons whereby is proved That the body of Christ is not present either In or Vnder or At the bread of the Lords Supper neither is corporally eaten Vnder With In or At the bread 1. BEcause hee took a true humane nature Whereupon we adde also that we cannot eate him otherwise than his disciples did in the first Supper 2. Hee truely ascended out of earth into heaven 3. Such is our eating of him as his abiding is in us 4. All the Saints of the Old and New Testament have the same union with Christ 5. Christ onely is able to offer himself unto the Father Now it is necessary in the use of the Supper to crave of God remission of sins Wherefore if he be present at the bread we must crave of him and so we offer the bread But in the New Testament it is not lawfull to direct our prayer to any certain place 6. The blessings which are promised unto the godly only are spirituall Unto these and other fore-alledged reasons cometh the consent of the ancient Fathers Ambrose Athanasius Austine Basil Bede Bertram Chrysostome Clement Alexandrinus the Councell of Nice Cyprian Cyril Denis Gelasius Gregorie the Great Gregorie Nazianzene Hesichius Hierom Hilary Irenaeus Justine Leo Macarius Origen Procopius Gaza Tertullian and so forth THE SECOND APPENDIX OR ADDITION Arguments whereby the opinion of the Vbiquitaries is refelled and the truth of sound doctrine confirmed THE FIRST ARGUMENT THE Marcionites and Manichees imagined that Christ had not a true and solid body but onely made shew of the shape of a body so that hee seemed onely to have flesh and bones whereas indeed hee had them not And further that the very incarnation and all the motions and operations of Christ did but onely seeme so in outward appearance whereas in the truth of the thing there was no such thing done Now the opinion of the Vbiquity and of the reall communicating of the properties of both natures doth raise againe from hell that fantasticall dotary and frensie of those heretickes Therefore it is no lesse to be abandoned and banished out of the Church to hell than that heresie of the Manichees That this opinion of Ubiquity doth give life againe to the former wee prove The Ubiquitaries are of opinion and so teach that all the properties of the God-head were presently from the very point of Christs conception really effused from the God-head of the Word into the humane nature which Christ took Hence these absurdities will follow 1. Christ shall not be truly born of the Virgin if as touching the nature of his humanity hee was truly and essentially without the wombe of his Mother before hee was born and after hee was born hee remained no lesse truly and substantially as touching his humanity in that selfe same womb than before 2. Christ was not truly weak in his humane nature and subject to passions if hee were then also as touching the same nature partaker of the divine majesty and omnipotency 3. Hee was not truly dead if also in the time of his death as touching his soul and body hee were essentially present every where together with his God-head For the soul being every where present could not be really separated in distance of places from the body which also should be every-where present and so neither could the body die but onely in outward appearance and imagination 4. Hee ascended not truly into heaven but it shall be said to have been onely a vaine and imaginarie and fantasticall spectacle if he were in his body substantially there before he visibly ascended thither and after he was ascended thither he remained yet in the substantiall presence of the same body no lesse truly than before on the earth yea in the very bodies also of the faithfull If these things so fell out in the truth of the thing it will follow that the same body of Christ was indeed at once and together both weak and omnipotent base and glorious subject to sufferings and not subject dead and alive limited and unlimited which is horrible to affirm For avoiding therefore of these prodigious and impious absurdities they will except that hee was not as touching his body otherwise than limited weak subject to passions and mortall in the time of his humiliation because hee had debased himself and would not shew forth that Majesty communicated unto his body before his resurrection Ans They interpret amisse that debasing of himself of all the glory and Majesty of his humanity hidden and kept close for a time whereas it is to be understood in respect of the Divinity of the Word in that he would take the forme of a servant that is the masse of our nature and become man Moreover it will follow that Christ did shew forth the communicated power and Majestie of his flesh even then when he was indeed weak and limited or circumscribed in body as when shedding tears he raised Lazarus from the dead and when being apprehended by the Jews he healed Malcus whom Peter wounded Now what is it else to raise the Marcionites up againe from
hell or in the greatest matter of all others impiously to blaspheme if this be not The second Argument THe blasphemie of Samosatenus Arrius and the late Anti-trinitaries is this That Christ-man is not properly and by nature God but onely by an accidentall participation of Divine properties majesty honour power and vertue The Ubiquitaries also maintaine the same consideration of the God-head of Christ-man while they define the personall union by his communicating alone of properties whereby the flesh of Christ is made omnipotent and every where So that now that man is and is called God not that hee is properly and by nature God but because in finite power majesty and glory is given him from God and all the gifts of the holy Ghost are bestowed on him without measure Now this accidentall bestowing of the God head and all the properties doth not make Christ to be properly and by nature God but only by divine grace or God unproperly so called because it is not the very essentiall God-head of the Word but a certain participation thereof in vertue and efficacy And therefore the sounder Fathers objected unto the Arrians that they took away the true and eternall God-head of Christ when they made him a God not by nature but by grace b participation onely of dignity and majesty Therefore seeing the Vbiquitaries also equalling our Immanuel with God by participation of properties onely take away his true and eternall God-head wee doe disclaime and accurse this their doctrine as blasphemous and hereticall And that they doe this their own words and opinions witnesse Brentius in recog p. 20 Anar Thes 10. â—â— p. Tubin Thes 25 26. and Apol. â—agr 29. as Brentius and Jacobus Andraeas and others of them in their writings Whence we conclude that the Ubiquitaries hold the same opinion with the Artians and the Anti-trinitaries of the God-head of Christ-man that is that all esteeme him for God not by nature but onely by grace of participation new temporary created adopted If these things be true Christ shall not be God and man Lib. 1. de Trinita but a divine man such as the Ubiquitaries repute him who as Servetus hold this opinion That God can communicate the fulnesse of his God-head give his divinity majesty power and glory unto man But wee execrate and detest the same blasphemy of both The third Argument NEstorius taught That the union of God the Word with man was wrought by the participation only of equality as touching majesty honour power vertue and operation Neither doth hee make the difference of the dwelling of the Word in mans nature which himselfe tooke and in other Saints to consist in any other thing than in those gifts and graces bestowed by God on man The selfe same also doe the Vbiquitaries teach because they cry that there is no difference between the inhabiting and dwelling of the God head in Peter and in Christ except it be taken from the communication of the gifts or properties of the God-head and they contend that by this meanes this man which was taken by the Word is God because the Word doth nothing without him but all things by him This is nothing else than to make Christ man onely God by an accident Wherefore the doctrine of Vbiquity is altogether the same with Nestorius his heresie Tert. lib. de Trin pag. 6. 10. Tertullian saith If Christ be man onely how then is he present every-where being called upon and invocated seeing this is not the nature of man but of God to be able to be present in all places By this testimony is refuted the Ubiquity of the humane nature in Christ Object But the union of the divine and humane nature in Christ is unseparable Therefore wheresoever the divine nature is there is also the humane nature Ans It is true which is said that the union is unseparable The Word never forsaketh the nature once assumed and taken But the Word is not in the humane nature as the soul is included in my body Wheresoever my body is there must my soule needs be neither is my soule at the same time without my body But the Word is not so in Christ-man But hee is so unseparably and personally in the humane nature as that he is together also without the humane nature in all the parts of the world as he filleth all and in holy men and Angels by his speciall presence The personall union of both natures doth not evert the generall action and working of his presence and majestie neither doth it let or hinder the speciall working of his presence because the Word is effectuall and worketh forcibly in the regenerate The generall points wherein the Churches which professe the Gospel agree or disagree in the controversie concerning the Lords Supper THey agree in these points 1. That as well the Supper of the Lord as Baptisme is a visible pledge and testimony annexed by Christ himselfe to the promise of grace to this end chiefly that our faith in this promise might be confirmed and strengthened 2. That in the true use of the Supper as well as in all other Sacraments two things are given by God unto us and are received of us namely earthly externall and visible signes are bread and wine and besides these also heavenly internall and invisible gifts as are the true body of Jesus Christ together with all his gifts and benefits and heavenly treasures 3. That in the Supper we are made partakers not only of the Spirit of Christ and his satisfaction justice vertue and operation but also of the very substance and essence of his true body and bloud which was given for us to death on the Crosse and which was shed for us and are truly fed with the self same unto eternall life and that this very thing Christ should teach and make known unto us by this visible receiving of this bread and wine in this Supper 4. That the bread and wine are not changed into the flesh and bloud of Christ but remain true and naturall bread and wine that also the body and bloud of Christ are not shut up in the bread and wine and therefore the bread and wine are called the body of Christ his body and bloud in this sense for that his body and bloud are not only signified by these and set before our eies but also because as often as we eat or drink this bread and wine in the true and right use Christ himself giveth us his body and bloud indeed to be the meat and drink of eternall life 5. That without the right use this receiving of bread and wine is no Sacrament neither any thing but an emptie and vaine ceremony and spectacle and such as men abuse to their owne damnation 6. That there is no other true and lawfull use of the Supper besides that which Christ himself hath instituted and commanded to be ketp namely this that this bread and this wine be eaten and drunken
in remembrance of him and to shew forth his death 7. That Christ in his Supper doth not command and require a dissembled and hypocriticall remembrance of him and publishing of his death but such as imbraceth his Passion and death and all his benefits obtained by these for us by a true and lively faith and with earnest and ardent thankfulnesse and applieth them unto those which eat and drinke as proper unto them 8. That Christ will dwell in beleevers only and in them who not through contempt but through necessity cannot come to the Lords Supper yea in all beleevers even from the beginning of the world to all eternitie even as well and after the same manner as he will dwell in them who came unto the Lords Supper They disagree in these points 1 THat one part contendeth that these words of Christ This is my body must be understood as the wordes sound which yet that part it selfe doth not prove but the other part that those words must be understood sacramentally according to the declaration of Christ and Paul according to the most certain and infallible rule and levell of the Articles of our Christian faith 2. That one part will have the body and bloud of Christ to be essentially In or With the bread and the wine and so be eaten as that together with the bread and the wine out of the hand of the Minister it entreth by the mouth of the receivers into their bodies but the other part will have the body of Christ which in the first Supper sate at the table by the Disciples now to be and continue not here on earth but above in the heavens above and without this visible world and heaven untill he descend thence again to judgement and yet that we notwithstanding here on earth as oft as we eat this bread with a true faith are so fed with his body and made to drink of his bloud that not only through his passion and bloud shed we are cleansed from our sins but are also in such sort coupled knit and incorporated into his true essentiall humane body by his Spirit dwelling both in him and us that we are flesh of his flesh and bone of his bones and are more neerly and firmely knit and united with him than the members of our body are united with our head and so we draw and have in him and from him everlasting life 3. That one part will have all whosoever come to the Lords Supper and eat and drink that bread and wine whether they be beleevers or unbeleevers to eat and drink corporally and with their bodily mouth the flesh and bloud of Christ beleevers to life and salvation unbeleevers to damnation and death the other holdeth that unbeleevers abuse indeed the outward signes bread and wine to their damnation but that the faithfull only can eat and drink by a true faith and the fore-alledged working of the holy Ghost the body and bloud of Christ unto eternall life Quest 83. What are the keyes of the Kingdome of heaven ON THE 31. SABBATH Ans Preaching of the Gospel and Ecclesiasticall discipline by which heaven is opened to the beleevers and is shut against the unbeleevers Quest 84. How is the Kingdome of heaven opened and shut by the preaching of the Gospel Answ When by the commandement of Christ it is publikely declared to all and every one of the faithfull that all their sins are pardoned them of God for the merit of Christ so often as they imbrace by a lively faith the promise of the Gospel but contrarily is denounced to all Infidels and Hypocrites that so long the wrath of God and everlasting damnation doth lie on them as they persist in their wickednesse a John 20.21 22 23. Mat. 16.19 according to which testimony of the Gospel God will judge them as well in this life as in the life to come Quest 85. How is the Kingdom of heaven opened and shut by Ecclesiasticall discipline Ans When according to the commandement of Christ they who in name are Christians but in their doctrine and life shew themselves aliens from Christ b Rom. 11.7 8 9. 1 Cor. 12.28 after they have been some time admonished will not depart from their errours or wickednesse are made knowne unto the Church or to them that are appointed for that matter and purpose of the Church and if neither then they obey their admonition are of the same men by interdiction from the Sacraments shut out from the Congregation of the Church and by God himselfe out of the Kingdome of heaven And againe if they professe and indeed declare amendment of life are received as members of Christ and his Church c Mat. 18.15 16 17. 1 Cor. 5.3 4 5. 2 Thes 3.14 15. 2 John 10.11 2 Cor. 2.6 7 10 11. 1 Tim. 5.17 The Explication SEeing it hath bin shewed in the Treatise next going before who are to be admitted by the Church unto the Lords Supper very commodiously and fitly shall this doctrine follow concerning the power of the keyes wherein besides other things this chiefly is taught How they who are not to be admitted must be restrained and excluded from the Sacraments lest approaching unto them they profane them The chiefe questions are 1. What the power of the keyes given unto the Church is and what are the parts thereof 2. Whether Ecclesiasticall discipline and excommunication be necessary 3. To whom that power is committed against whom and in what order to be used 4. To what ends it is to be directed and what abuses therein are to be avoided 5. What that power of the keyes committed unto the Church differeth from the Civill power 1. What the power of the keyes given to the Church is and what are the parts thereof THe power of the keyes of the Kingdome of heaven which Christ gave to his Church is the preaching of the Gospell and Ecclesiasticall discipline whereby heaven is opened to the beleeving and shut up against the unbeleeving and unfaithfull Or it is the office or charge imposed on the Church by Christ of denouncing by the preaching of the Gospell and Church discipline Gods will and even of declaring the grace of God and remission of sins unto the penitent that is to them who live in true faith and repentance but of denouncing unto the wicked the wrath of God and exclusion or banishment from the Kingdome of Christ and of casting such out of the Church as long as they shall shew themselves in doctrine and life estranged from Christ and of receiving them againe into the Church when afterwards they shall repent It is called the power of the keyes by a Metaphor or borrowed speech taken from the Stewards of mens houses Why this power is called the keys to whom the keyes are delivererd in charge and the keyes import a Steward-ship by a Metonymy or change of names between the signe and the thing signified thereby as we use to say The Scepter
minde to God himself the Creatour of all things and the fountaine of all benefits or gifts 2. If we desire that he will give to the bread obtained and received from him Levit. 26.26 a force and vertue of nourishing and sustaining our bodies that is if we ask not only the bread but the blessing also of the bread at Gods hands For unlesse he blesse all our cares and labours are bâ—t vaine and the very gifts of God become unprofitable yea hurtfull unto us according to that his commination I will breake the staffe of bread Hereby now it is plainly cleere what we desire when we desire bread namely 1. Not great riches but only things necessary 2. That they be bread to us that is that they may be good and saving to us through Gods benediction and blessing wherewith if they be not accompanied the bread shall not be bread but it shall be as a stone or poyson to us For he that giveth bread that it may be to him that receiveth it no better then a stone giveth a stone not bread And such are the blessings which the wicked receive of God and snatch as it were unto themselves 4. Wherefore Christ calleth it our bread CHrist willeth us to desire our Bread not mine thine or any other mans Bread 1. That we should desire those things which God giveth us For the bread is made ours which is given us of God necessary for the sustenance of our life Therefore give us our bread signifieth Give us bread O God assigned unto us by thee which thou wilt have to be ours God as an house-holder doth distribute to every one his portion which we desire for our selves of him 2. That we should desire things necessary gotten of us by lawfull labour in a kinde and trade of life pleasing to God and honest and profitable to the common society that is which we may receive through ordinary meanes and by lawfull waies the hand of God from heaven reaching them out unto us He that will not worke let him not eate 2 Thes 3.10 3. That we may use them with a good conscience and thankesgiving For God will have us assured that when he giveth us these blessings he giveth us with them the power of enjoying them yet so that he will not have us use his gifts as ravenous robbers but freely and with thanksgiving 5. Wherefore Christ calleth it daily bread CHrist calleth the bread which we must desire of God daily 1. Because he will have us daily to desire as much as may for every day suffice us 2. Because he will bridle our raging and endlesse lusts and desires Mat. 6.31 Your Father knoweth what ye have need of A small thing unto the just man Ps 37.16 34.9 is better then great riches to the wicked and mighty Nothing wanteth to them that feare the Lord that is no profitable and necessary thing Therefore give us daily bread that is give us bread sufficient give us so much of things necessary for our life as shall be needfull for every of us in his vocation and calling to serve God and our neighbour 6. Why Christ addeth This day CHrist addeth it 1. To meet with our distrustfulnesse and covetousnesse and to reclaime us from these vices 2. That we should depend on him only as yesterday so this day and to morrow that namely we alwaies looke for the necessaries of this life at the hands of God that we know them to be given us of God not to be gotten by our own hands or labours or diligence that also we know that they being received profit not our body except Gods blessing do accompany them 3. That the exercise of faith and prayer may alwaies be continued in us For as long as it is said This day so long will he have prayer to be continued that so we may yeeld due obedience to that commandement 2 Thes 5.17 Pray alwaies 7. Whether it be lawfull to desire riches THis question together with the next ensuing ariseth out of the former questions For when we are willed to desire onely daily bread and that this day it seemeth at the first sight that it is not lawfull either to desire riches or to put up any thing for the morrow But it is verily lawfull to desire riches if taking away all ambiguity and doubtfulnesse of the word we understand by the name of riches things necessary for the sustenance of life What Epicurus took riches to be As the Epicure defined riches to be a poverty agreeable to the law of Nature This definition is good For they are to be accounted truly rich who have things necessary sufficient to maintaine life and who live content here-with And if we so take the name of riches riches are doubtlesse to be desired of God in as much as we ought to desire such things as are necessary for nature and our place and function whereunto God hath called us The reason hereof is because these necessary things or riches are the daily bread which we ought to desire They are also otherwise defined To be an abundance and plenty over and above things necessary So Crassus surnamed the Rich said that no man was rich but he who was able to maintaine an Army with his revenues If we take riches in this sense riches are not at all to be desired of God For this we are not to aske our daily bread And Salomon in the person of all the godly saith Prov. 30.8 Give me not poverty nor riches by which words the Spirit of God also by Salomon teacheth us to pray against riches that is abundance above things necessary 2 Tim. 6.9 Hither belongeth also that of Paul They which will be rich fall into tentations and snares and into many foolish and noysome lusts which drowne men in perdition and destruction for which causes riches are called Thornes by Christ which cannot be handled without danger of pricking 1 Tim. 6.6 But contrariwise godlinesse is great gaine if a man be content with that he hath But notwithstanding if God hath given us any thing besides those things which are necessary for us let us doe our diligence to use them well or reserve them to good uses For Christ commanded his Disciples to gather up the broken meate which remained that nothing bee lost And famous and notable is the example of Joseph John 6.12 who by the fore-warning of the Oracle Gen. 41. gathered and laid up food in the time of plenty for the yeares of dearth to come But here we must take heede 1. That we repose not our confidence in them 2. We must avoid luxury and all abuse of them 3. We must consider that we are Gods stewards who hath committed these riches unto us to imploy and bestow well Three things to be weighed in our treasuring up of riches and that by this meanes he hath laid a burthen upon us and therefore shall we one
thy glory Quest 129. What meaneth this particle Amen Ans That the thing is sure and out of doubt a 2 Cor. 1.20 2 Tim. 2.13 For my prayer is much more certainly heard of God then I feele in my heart that I unfeignedly desire the same The Explication THis particle is added not as a part of the prayer but it noteth and betokeneth 1. A true and sincere desire wherewith we wish that we may be heard that the thing we aske may be sure and certaine unto us and that God would condescend and answer unto our request 2. A certainty and profession of our confidence or confirmation of our faith whereby we trust that we shall be heard Wherefore the word Amen signifieth 1. So be it and sure and certaine be that which wee desire 2. So God being not unmindfull of his promise truely and certainely heare us FINIS Soli Deo Laus Gloria A large Alphabeticall Table containing all the chiefe and remarkable points contained in this BOOKE A ABsolution How the word of God doth absolve and condemne 485. Actions All actions are not sins in themselves but by accident 209. No action evill in it self in respect of God 210. Adultery The meaning of the word Adultery 601. Vide Chastity Affability What it is 613. Afflictions How many kinds of them 103. How they are punishments and how crosses ibidem Eight causes of them on the godly 104. The comforts which they have in them 105. 106. Three causes of the afflictions of the godly 161. All. Why all men are not saved by Christ but the faithfull onely 132. Whether Christ died for all 298. A reconciliation of those Scriptures which seeme to make for Christs dying for all 298. 299. Amen What it signifies 655. Angels What good Angels are 189. They are finite ibid. How they are called the children of God 190. They are the Ministers of the Elect. ib. Why called Powers 191. of evill Angels ibid. Christ called an Angel 256. Two reasons proving it ibid. c. Anger Gods anger against sin 165. Annointed Vid. Christ Why Christ is so called 226. What this annointing is ib. the Analogie betweene the signe and the thing signified 227. Christ is annointed spiritually 228. Why God cannot be said to be annointed ibidem and yet in what sort Christ may be said to be annointed according to his Godhead ibidem What the annointing of Christians is 234 What it is to be the partaker of Christs annointing 235. Arrians Their heresies confuted 263. 264. 265. c. Ascension What Christs ascension is 313. whither he ascended ibid. The manner how 314. The fruits of it 320. B BAptism What it is 409. Three things comprehended in it 410. The differences betweene baptisme and the washing of old ibidem Its ends and why it is not to be re-iterated 411. What it is to be baptised into Christs death 412. A two-fold washing in baptisme 413 What the right and lawfull use of baptisme is 414. The proper and improper formes of speaking of baptisme 415. Why baptisme is called the washing of the new birth 416. The baptisme of Infants confirmed by many arguments 417. The Anabaptists Arguments answered about the baptisme of Infants 418. 419. c. How baptisme and circumcision agree and how they differ 423. 424. Beget Begotten How Christ is said to be the only begotten Sonne of God 239. Why according to his manhood be cannot be properly so called 240. Beleeve What it is to beleeve God and IN God 179. what it is to beleeve IN Christ 237. Vid. Faith Blasphemy The difference betweene the blasphemy against God and against the holy Ghost 558. Blessings Wee may desire as well corporall as spirituall blessings 641. why corporall blessings are comprehended under the word Bread 643. Body How the parts of mans body are attributed to God 152. The Image of GOD in man doth not argue a bodily shape ibidem The similitude of mans body to declare our union with Christ 234. Of the bodies resurrection Vide Resurrection 372. 373. The ubiquity of Christs body confuted 459. Borne Five causes of Christs being borne of the Virgin Mary 272. The benefit of it 272. 273. Bounty In what the bounty of God is seen 164. Bread The breaking of Bread is one of the names which the Lords Supper yet retaines 427. Two things signified by it 434. Foure causes why this ceremony is yet retained ibid. whether Bread and Wine are the very body and bloud of Christ in the Sacrament 436. why the Bread is called the body 455. their Analogie 456. How corporall blessings are contained under the name of Bread 643. how we call Bread in the Lords Prayer Ours ibid. why Daily Bread and This Day 644. Brother Brotherhood Of our Brotherhood with Christ 240. Buriall To what end Christ was buried 300. C CAtechisme Catechising What. 25. who were the Catechumeni 25. 26. The originall and perpetuall use of Catechisme 26. The parts and points of it 27. Why necessary ibidem Its ends 29. Ceremonies What they are with their severall sorts 588. whether the Church may ordaine ceremonies 589. Chastity What it is 602. It s contrary vices 602. 603. c. Vide Adultery Christ Hee is perfectly just foure waies 115. why Christ is the Sonne and not Father nor holy Ghost 118. 119. why all are not saved by him and why the faithfull onely 132. why hee is called Jesus a Saviour 220. his office and benefits differ ibidem He is our most perfect Saviour 223. whom he saveth 224. why Jesus is called the Annointed 226. 227. he is annointed spiritually 228. Vide Annoint Christs Propheticall function what 229. Vide Prophet Why he is called the Word 230. why a Priest with the circumstances thereof See the word Priest Why Christ is a King and what his Kingdome is Vide King 233. Christ is our head in three respects 235. how Christ can be called the onely begotten Sonne of GOD when we also are called his sonnes 238. Of Christs God-head 241. his God-head proved by our Regeneration 251. Christ the Sonne of GOD a person really distinct from â—he Father and the holy Ghost 257. Christ hath the whole God-head entire 258. The properties thereof 259. he is equall in honour with the Father and the holy Ghost 260. Christians Why wee are so called 233. what our annointing is 234. Our Propheticall function and Priesthood 236. Church A definition of the doctrine of the Church 1. Reasons why GOD would have his Church distinguished from other Sects ibidem Notes of the Church 3. The parts of its doctrine with the differences from other Sects 3. 4. The difference betweene Church-doctrine and Philosophy 3. 4. How the Church-doctrine was delivered of God and how confirmed 4. 5. Reasons why the Scriptures depend not on the Church 5. Objections against this answered 6. 7. The Papists brag of their Churches not erring 16. Not the Church but the holy Ghost is Judge of the Word 21. Three Rules for having the
every day more and more deviate from that primitive simplicity But why do I wonder 2 Thes 2.1 Hom. 3. in Rom. Hom. 3. in Tit. 3. seeing God punisheth the world by sending upon it strong delusions in that it loves not the truth But because as Chrysostome saith Errour is various and intricate and hath a restlesse and unstable quality it is no strange thing that of one errour many do arise and that out of one Controversie ten doe proceed At the first the onely Controversie was about the tenth Article concerning Christs body lurking under the bread as also of the orall manducation in the Lords Supper which Controversie was long in agitation amongst the Lutherans but in all the other Articles here set downe by us there was a full consent as the Acts of the Conference at Marpurge Anno 1529. do witnesse yea Divines began to agree in the doctrine of the Lords Supper Anno 1536. but this agreement was quickly broke because after Luthers death some could not handsomely maintainer their opinion of Christs corporall presence in the Bread seeing none of the Evangelists did utter these words of Christ This is my body after this manner This bread is my body or under the bread or under the species of bread lurks my body Besides Christ whom they include in the Wafer or Host according to our Catholick beliefe is not now upon the earth but in heaven sitting at the right hand of God from whence he will come to judge the quick and the dead they were in good hope to shelter their opinion under some other Articles of faith and chiefly under that of the personall union of the two natures in Christ Hence they went about to establish his Ubiquity and Omnipotency hitherto unheard of in the world using this shift If Christs body be every-where it will be also in every Host if it be in every Host then it will be every-where Then they fondly imagined the Article of Christs sitting at the right hand of the Father to be the same with that of the personall union of the two natures as if you would say Christs humanity with the Sonne of God which is that very right hand of God every-where present is personally united and filleth heaven and earth Thirdly because they saw that the Article of Christs Ascension did overthrow the Ubiquity and corporall presence in the Bread by an unheard of and Allegoricall way they expounded Christs Ascension to be meant of nothing else but of his vanishing into the aire of his advancing unto the Divinity and of his Ubiquity To these new monsters of opinions as well the Pontifician Doctors as those of our profession besides divers of the Lutherans did stoutly oppose themselves defending the ancient simplicity and truth of these Articles of our faith which the new Artists of Ubiquity perceiving and finding that they failed here of their purpose they found out new engines and began to accuse those whom they stile Calvinists of other errours to provoke them to Conference and Disputation not onely about the Person of Christ but also about the other Articles of Christianity bragging they could convince them of many fundamentall errours taught in the Reformed Churches Concerning Predestination That all men were not elected but that many were called and few elected Concerning the merit of Christs death That the wicked and incredulous so long as they remained such were not partakers thereof but onely the Elect that beleeved That the promises of the Gospel were universall in respect of the faithful but not of unbeleevers and Epicures Concerning faith That it is the singular gift of God That it is given onely to the Elect in whom onely it is rooted and permanent That the same can never be finally lost because it proceeds of the incorruptible seed of Gods word Concerning the Ministery That Ministers were onely outward dispensers of the word but God wrought inwardly by his Spirit Concerning Sacraments That Christ was yesterday to day and the same for ever and that therefore he was the matter or subject of all Sacraments both of the Old and New Testament Besides that no man either by the word or Sacraments could be partaker of Christ without faith Concerning Baptisme That there was a two-fold washing one outward of water by which the filth of the body is washed away the other inward of the bloud and Spirit of Christ which is the Covenant of a good conscience with God That the Minister baptised onely with water but Christ in the true administration of Baptisme did baptise with the holy Spirit Also that Infidels were not regenerated by Baptisme Also that the children of Christians were children of the promise and of the Covenant even before Baptisme and that for this cause they were to be baptised This doctrine since the yeare 1586. hath beene not onely condemned as Calvinisticall and Hereticall but also reproached and accursed by them who glory in the name of Lutherans And when among the ignorant Vulgar they traduce these Articles as errours of Calvinisme they thinke they have bravely maintained their Cause in defending their fictions of Ubiquity and of a carnall presence in the Lords Supper which now we leave for a while committing our whole cause of God But it is certaine that they have so farre relapsed into the sinke of Pelagianisme and Popery that it is to be feared they will overwhelme the Lutheran Churches with greater darkenesse then ever heretofore and yet alas they stick not to call this the true Evangelicall doctrine and that of the Augustan Confession teaching concerning predestination that in God is no election but that he did promiscuously choose all men Concerning Christs death that he by his death redeemed all men and reconciled them to God that he hath sanctified them and hath received them into favour whether they beleeve or not Concerning remission of sins that a generall pardon is given to all men both faithfull and Infidels Concerning the promises of the Gospell that they belong to all both faithfull and Infidell Concerning Faith that it is the cause of Election that God did first foresee who were to beleeve and persevere that faith is not in our power that notwithstanding it is a worke which God promotes in us and that it may be lost and may be in hypocrites Concerning the Ministery that Ministers may by their preaching conferre divine efficacy and that they are dispensators both outwardly and inwardly Concerning Sacraments that the Sacraments of the Old Testament were onely shadows without Christ the body Concerning Baptisme that there is a mysticall efficacy in the water to wash away sinne and to regenerate that the holy Ghost and his efficacy are annexed to the water that the water and Spirit have the same effect that hypocrites and Infidels in Baptisme are regenerated by the holy Ghost that the Minister doth not onely baptise with water but conferres also the holy Ghost that Christian Infants before Baptisme belong no more to
13.8 Jesus Christ yesterday to day and the same for ever 1 Cor. 8.6 We have one God the Father of whom are all things and we in him and one Lord Jesus Christ by whom are all things and we by him d 1 Cor. 10.4 All did eate the same spirituall food and all did drinke the same spirituall drinke for they dranke of the spirituall Rock which followed them and that Rock was Christ 1 Cor. 12.13 By one Spirit we are all baptised into one body both Jews and Greeks and have beene all made to drink into one Spirit Ephes 1.4 5. He elected us in him before the foundation of the world was laid and hath predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himselfe according to the good pleasure of his will IV. The spirituall grace or the thing signified is with the signes received in the true use of the Sacrament which is when with true faith and conversion to God the Sacrament is a received for God so instituted the Sacraments that the signes ordained to confirme our faith should be received out of the hand of the Minister the promise annexed to the signes and spirituall grace it self promised should be received by faith from b God as the promise cannot be received but by faith Hence the Sacraments are not availeable to those that are without faith and conversion Testimonies of Scripture and of others a John 1.26 33. I baptise you with water but he standeth in the midst of you whom yee know not he it is who baptiseth with the holy Ghost 1 Cor. 3.6 I have planted Apollo hath watered but God gives the increase b Rom. 2.25 But if thou breakest the Law thy circumcision is become uncircumcision 1 Cor. 11.20 When ye come together therefore into one place this is not to eate the Lords Supper Apol. August Confes Tit. De usu Sacram. Therefore as the promise is ineffectuall if it be not received by faith so the Ceremonie is unprofitable if faith be not added which truly assureth us that here remission of sins is proffered V. Here is the true use of Sacraments when the Sacramentall signes are received with true faith and a repentance and are directed to that end for which they were ordained by God Testimonies of Scripture and of others a Mark 16.16 He that beleeveth and is baptised shall be saved Rom. 2.25 Circumcision indeed availeth if thou fulfill the Law Apol. August Confes De Sacram. c. Therefore we teach that in the use of the Sacraments faith is required which may beleeve these promises and may receive the things promised which are there offered in the Sacrament and it is a most plaine and firme reason that the promise is uselesse if it be not received by faith Idem De usu Sacram. And such an use of the Sacrament is the worship of the New Testament when faith quickneth the affrighted soule Idem But that faith acknowledgeth mercy and this is the principall use of the Sacrament VI. By reason of the Sacramentall signification obsignation and exhibition of things by signes it comes to passe that oftentimes the signes do retaine the names of the things signified which phrase is called Sacramentall Testimonies of Scripture and of others Gen. 17.18 This is my Covenant Verse 11. This shall be the signe of the Covenant betweene me and you Exod. 12.11 This is the Lords Passeover 1 Cor. 11.24 25. This is my Body This Cup is the New Testament in my blood August Ad Bonifac. Epist 23. If Sacraments had not a certaine similitude of these things of which they are Sacraments they could not be Sacraments at all and by reason of this similitude many times they receive the names of the things themselves Idem Tom. 4. in Levit. quaest 57. The thing which signifieth is wont to be called by the name of that thing which it signifieth as it is written The seven sheaves are seven yeares VII We therefore reject these truly Sacramentarian errors which are partly Papisticall and partly Ubiquitarian as 1. That there is no need of the generall doctrine of Sacraments 2. That Sacraments are not fully but onely in some sort defined by the efficient and small cause or by their effects as the Apology of Exfurt teacheth 3. That they are not the Seales of the promises of grace nor do they confirme our faith as the Jesuits and Anabaptists contend 4. That they containe justifying grace in them as it were the pitchers or vessels thereof that they are the instruments of justification by conferring it 5. That by their force they conferre justifying grace by the work wrought as they say 6. That there is not the same spirituall grace in the Word and in all the Sacraments nor the same communion of Christ 7. That the old Sacraments were bare signes without the true exhibition of the things themselves in their true use 8. That the spirituall things signified no lesse then the signes signifying are carried in and dispensed by the hands of the Minister 8. That spirituall things are received by the wicked even without faith 9. That there are no phrases figurative and Sacramentall but all proper in the Sacraments 10. That there are seven or more Sacraments then the two of Baptism and the Lords Supper instituted by God ARTICLE IX Of Baptisme I. WE beleeve that Baptisme is the laver of water in the Word by which Christ cleanseth his Church regenerating and renewing it by the holy a Ghost that is to say that it is a Sacrament instituted by Christ in which God witnesseth to those that are baptised with water in the Name of the Father Son and holy b Ghost that he receiveth them into the Covenant of grace through Christ and that he reneweth and cleanseth them from sin by the holy Spirit through his bloud Testimonies of Scripture a Ephes 5.26 Even as Christ loved the Church and gave himselfe for her that he might sanctifie her having cleansed her by the laver of water in the Word Tit. 3.5 By his mercy he hath saved us through the laver of regeneration and renewing of the holy Ghost b Mat. 28.19 Go and teach all Nations baptizing them in the Name of the Father Son and holy Ghost Mark 16.16 He that beleeveth and is baptised shall be saved 1 Cor. 6.11 You are washed you are sanctified you are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus 1 Cor. 12.13 By one Spirit we are baptised into one body II. We say that it consisteth of the Element and the a Word according to that vulgar saying Adde to the Word the Element and it becomes a Sacrament as if it were a visible word and therefore it consisteth of a two-fold b washing the one external of water obvious to the sense the other internal of bloud and of the holy Ghost and of this the Word instructs us The externall signifying washing which is a signe is done by the Minister touching the body externally the internall which is the thing signified
is performed by God washing the soule inwardly for I saith the Baptist baptise you with water Christ baptiseth you with the holy Ghost And Ambrose With water the body is washed by the Spirit the soul is cleansed from sin Testimonies of Scripture and of others a Augustine in Joh. Tract 8. de Catechis c. 3. b 1 Pet. 3.21 Baptisme also saveth us not as if by it the filth of the flesh were done away but the answer of a good conscience toward God c John 1.33 He it is who baptiseth you with the holy Ghost Ephes 5.26 Christ sanctifieth his Church having purged her through the washing of water in the Word d Ambrose in Luc. lib. 2. cap. 3. III. Yet we do not for this make a double Sacrament of Baptisme when we name the washing of water and of the Spirit or externall and internall but we say there are two parts of one Baptisme that we may distinctly teach what is done by man the Minister and what by God the Authour Neither did Paul divide the Sacrament of Circumcision into two when he distinguished the circumcision of the flesh and of the a heart which distinction whosoever takes away either they leave nothing or surely lesse to God in the Sacrament then to the Ministers allowing to God onely the internall parts but to the Ministers both externall and internall Testimonies of Scripture a Rom. 2.28 29. For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh But he is a Jew which is one inwardly and circumcision is that of the heart in the spirit and not in the letter IV. In the lawfull use of Baptisme the internall is signified by the externall and is truly exhibited and sealed according to the promise He that beleeveth and is baptised shall be saved As for hypocrites and Infidels when they are dipt in water they are not baptised by the Spirit because the holy Ghost flies from a counterfeit man and he dwels not in a body subject to sins Hom. 5. in Mat. operis impers and therefore he cannot be the child of God as Chrysostome most truly saith V. Baptisme then washeth away sins it regenerates it saves c. not by any secret force annexed or imprinted in the water nor by the work wrought but by a Sacramentall phrase because there is a neere conjunction of both the washings in the lawfull use that is attributed to the externall which is proper to the internall or by a Synecdoche that is given to the whole which belongs to the part VI. Whereas Baptisme hath succeeded Circumcision that it might be the Sacrament of initiation in the new Covenant it ought not to be iterated although it hath beene unworthily received or before conversion because it remaines alwaies ratified to those that are converted as the promise of the Gospell is and the Covenant but to those that repent it is both ratified and it is saving and the use thereof before unlawfull is now made lawfull to them to which purpose Austine saith If he that receiveth the Sacrament Contra Crescent l. 2. c. 28. had never received it is not so cut off but is acknowledged which of it selfe was hurtfull to him that is amended will be profitable Testimonies of Scripture Jerem. 3.1 Thou hast gone a whoring after many lovers but returne to me saith the Lord. Ezek. 16.59 60. I will even deale with thee as thou hast done which hast despised the oath in breaking the covenant Neverthelesse I will remember my covenant with thee in the dayes of thy youth and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant VII The Church should conferre Baptisme as Christ hath commanded upon all that are in yeares professing the faith of Christ and a repentance and upon Infants also borne in the Church or who with their parents are come into the Church because to these also the promise and covenant b appertaine and these are to be brought to c Christ which should be done by the ordinary Ministers not by women or other persons having no calling to the Ministeriall d function the administration of which is a part of the e Sacrament Testimonies of Scripture and of others a Mat. 28.19 Teach all Nations baptising them b Mark. 16.16 He that beleeveth and is baptised c. Gen. 17.7 I will be thy God and the God of thy seed Acts 2.38 39. Repent and be baptised every one of you in the Name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins and ye shall receive the gift of the holy Ghost For the promise is unto you and to your children and to all that are a far off even as many as the Lord our God shall call c Mat. 19.14 Suffer these little ones and forbid them not to come to me for to such belongs the kingdome of heaven d Mat. 28.19 Mark 16.16 e Concil Carthag 4. Canon 100. Let not a woman presume to baptise for that addition Except necessity urge is not in the Canon of the Councell but is foisted in by the Pope Decret dist 4. de consecr C. Mulier against the meaning both of the Councell and the command of Christ which cannot without sin be violated except some other speciall command from God should be given VIII These contrary doctrines we impugne 1. That Baptisme is no signe of grace but onely a badge or marke by which Christians are discerned tying them to faith and to the Crosse 2. That water and the Word are not the essentiall parts of Baptisme but water and the person of the holy Ghost included in the Word 3. That there is annexed and affixed a secret vertue which confers upon the baptised the grace of the holy Ghost 4. That the holy Spirit with his effects are tied to Baptisme 5. That the effects of the holy Spirit and of Baptisme are alike or equall 6. That baptised Hypocrites and Infidels as Judas and Simon Magus c. are regenerated in Baptisme by the holy Ghost no lesse then the faithfull 7. That Ministers baptise not onely with water but also with the holy Ghost and so they do more in baptisme then Christ himselfe did 8. That the Infants of the Church are not to be baptised that the baptised are to be re-baptised 9. That the Infants of the Church before Baptisme are spiritually possessed by Satan and therefore are to be exorcised with certaine words and crossings 10. That the children of the Church before Baptisme do no more belong to the Covenant of God then the children of Turks and that there is no difference at all betweene Turkish and Christian children 11. That in case of necessity Mid-wives or any other that have no calling do duely baptise ARTICLE X. Of the Lords Supper I. WE beleeve the holy Supper to be the communion of the bodie and bloud of Christ which is by taking the bread broken and the cup being a blessed in memorie of Christs death till he b come that is to say that it
not discerning the Lords body Hebr. 10.29 Of how much sorer punishment suppose ye be shall be thought worthy who hath troden under foot the Son of God and hath counted the bloud of the covenant wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing and hath done despite unto the spirit of grace VII Therefore we dis-approve those other doctrines which teach 1. That Christs bodie is in the bread 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or under the accidents of bread corporally present by consubstantiation or by transubstantiation 2. That Christs bodie is properly carried in the Ministers hands 3. That it is eaten by the bodily mouth 4. That the Pronoune This doth shew an uncertaine individuum or singularitie or an indeterminate substance 5. That This demonstrates both the bread and also Christs bodie lurking invisibly in the bread 6. That wicked men do properly eat Christs bodie ARTICLE XI Of the Civill Magistrate Translated out of Dutch into Latine I. IN man there is a two-fold government the one belonging to the soule or the inward man making him truly to know God rightly to worship him and at length to attaine righteousnesse and life eternall the other governes the bodie and outward man that he might passe this politicall life amongst men with all modestie and honestie II. And although the holy Scripture chiefly handles the government of the soule and is ordained principally by God to give directions to the soule yet it delivers also many excellent and wholsome precepts concerning the outward government of the bodie And for the better administration of this that mankind might be preserved God hath commanded in his word that among men some should command and have the charge of civill government others should obey and be subject to that government Those by a relation are called Magistrates and Subjects III. The power of the civill Magistrate is no lesse nay more necessary then our daily food then the sun aire or water seeing this terrene life cannot subsist without these for by these naturall things man breathes eats drinks lives and moves as other creatures which enjoy these things in common with man Now that men may not live like beasts but like men that is that they may live with all modestie and honestie before God and men that they may beware of all idolatrie blasphemy or any other abuse of Gods Name also that they may avoid all sort of filthinesse and damages by which either wee our selves or the life fame and possessions of our neighbour may be hurt and that the true knowledge of God sincere worship and feare and that all civill honestie may prevaile and that the publick peace and tranquillitie among men may not be troubled that every one may safely enjoy his owne that honest and necessary contracts may flourish and lastly that all things in the Common-wealth may be done in a lawfull way the civill Magistrate should be very carefull of seeing he is ordained for this end by God therefore they may truly be called beasts rather then men who would remove and overthrow this ordinance of God among men IV. The doctrine of the civill Magistrate consisteth of these three heads First concerning the authoritie of the Magistrate whether it is ordained by God or pleasing to him also of his office right and power as well in ecclesiasticall as politick affaires Secondly of the lawes to which Christian Magistrates are tied Thirdly of the dutie of subjects what they owe to their Magistrates and how far they are to obey them Of each of these what is to be concluded out of Gods word the ensuing Aphorismes will teach V. The Apostle expresly teacheth that the Magistrate is ordained by God in these words There is no power but of God The powers that be are ordained of God Rom. 13.1 4. For he is the minister of God to thee for good By this divine authoritie the Magistrate being guarded let him think how wisely and diligently he must carry himselfe in his office For if hee be so from God that hee is the minister of God surely hee should endeavour with all care that all things be done according to Gods ordinance as well in ecclesiasticall as in politick affaires neither must hee doe any thing wittingly and willingly against it From this ground of divine ordination Moses the man of God and holy King Jehosaphat did so speak unto their Judges and Governours Take heed what ye doe for ye judge not for man but for the Lord Deut. 1.17 2 Chron. 19.6 7. who is with you in the judgement Wherefore now let the feare of the Lord be upon you take heed and doe it for there is no iniquity with the Lord our God nor respect of persons nor taking of gifts Againe if the Magistrate be ordained by God to be his minister hee ought to assure himselfe that he must serve God that he must doe all to his honour and for mans benefit so he doe that according to the prescription of Gods word VI. Therefore that cannot be unpleasing to God which he himself ordained Yea he calls Magistrates by his owne Name 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Gods because they exercise judgement in stead of God Exod. 22.8 If the thiefe cannot be found then shall the master of the house be brought unto the gods God standeth in the midst of gods Psal 82.1 which Psalme Christ alledgeth John 10.35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came I have said Ye are gods Besides the Scripture witnesseth that many holy men did exercise the office of the Magistrate as Josuah David Ezechia among the Kings Joseph and Daniel among Princes Moses Josuah Gedeon amongst the Dukes or Judges VII Away then with these fooleries of Anabaptists and other fanaticall spirits saying That in the Old Testament the office of the Magistrate was necessary to Gods people by reason of the imperfection of the Jewish nation but that it s written in the New Testament The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them Luk. 22.25 and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors But it shall not be so with you Galat. 5.16 Againe In Christ nothing availeth except the new creature Also I say unto you Matth. 5.39 Doe not resist the evill VIII For first if the imperfection of the Jewish people did necessarily require a Magistrate surely much more necessary will the having of a Magistrate be to us Christians seeing it is written also of us In many things we offend all But they who offend in many things must needs be imperfect yet wee deny not James 3.2 but that Christians by Gods favour have a great prerogative above the Jewes in respect of the cleare knowledge we have of God and of that grace which is exhibited to us by Christ but in respect of our politick life we have no lesse need of this divine ordination of Magistrates then the Jewes had Besides it is written in the New Testament not in the
that the nature assumed the nature or the nature assumed the nature mediately the person immediately assumed the nature because as they speake the union is immediatly terminated in the person mediatly in the divine nature III. The humanity in Christ is not a person subsisting in it selfe but a nature having no proper personality but by reason of the union fully capable and participant of the person of the Word The Animadversion It is rightly said that the humanity wants a proper personality for a personality is a subsistence or the power of subsisting by it selfe without any other and without any other suppositum or supporting subject of a rationall nature which power the humanity neither had Whether and how the flesh is capable of the person nor hath but it is a new improper and deceitfull saying that by force of the union the flesh is made fully capable and partaker of the person of the Word It is first new because neither the Scripture nor the Church speaketh thus that the flesh is capable of the person 2. Improper because the flesh neither containes nor incloseth the person of the Word as the place is said to be capable of the thing placed He begins to speake thus Thes 44. neither becomes it the person it selfe or is it informed by the personality as the subject is capable of the forme 3. Deceitfull because the Sophister useth this phrase as a preparative for the reall communication of the properties in the natures to wit that he may say that the flesh is after the same manner capable and partaker of the deity and omnipresence as it is according to his saying partaker and capable of the personality and that therefore not by its owne but by the deity and immensity of the Word it is God and omnipresent even as not by its owne but by the personality of the Word it subsisteth But orthodox men confesse with Damascen that the person of the Word by reason of the union is common to both natures that now the humanity subsisteth in Christ by the same personality that the divinity doth but they deny that the flesh is made so capable and partaker of the person as if it were the person it selfe as they also deny that it is made so partaker of the deity and omnipresence as if it were the deity of God himselfe the omnipresence or omnipresent c. neither doe they grant that it is otherwise partaker of the person of the deity of the omnipresence or can be then by the union which maketh not that the humanity but that man is the person is God is omnipresent in which sense the Apostle saith That the Son of God was made partaker of the flesh and bloud of the children to wit Heb. 2. by assuming the seed of Abraham into his personality or by the hypostaticall union whereby not the deity of the Son but God the Son is made flesh and blood that is to say true man In this sense also it may be rightly said that the flesh or humanity of Christ is partaker of the person of the deity of omnipresence to wit by the union with the divine person and omnipresent which union makes not that the humanity of Christ but that the man Christ is a person is God is omnipresent IV. This in the Scripture is called flesh by which word not the onely corporeall masse is understood but the full and entire humanity consisting of a true body and a reasonable soule V. For the Son of God is made partaker of flesh and bloud as we are to wit in all things made like to his brethren except sin The Animadversion He saith well That under the terme of flesh is meant the entire humanity consisting of a true body and soule so he would adde these words With the true properties of both and withall the infirmities except sin For if he be like his brethren in all things then surely in locality and circumscription hee is made like to them and that in the union and in the Word For without the union and without the Word the flesh hath neither being nor subsistence at any time Therefore that is false which he affirmes in the 36. Thesis That the flesh by power of the union hath in a most eminent way transcended all locality in the illocall Word and that it hath obtained an illocall manner of existence VI. Therefore the Word did not assume an imaginary but a true and solid body consisting of flesh and bones Luke 24. of flesh and bloud John 16. which also in glory remaines a true body conformable to the glorified bodies of the Saints both in substance and qualities The Animadversion This Thesis alone doth strongly refute these ensuing subterfuges 1. For if the Word assumed not a fantasticall but a true and solid body then doubtlesse it assumed a body endued with quantitie dimension visibilitie and localitie For that is not a true body but an imaginary that wants quantitie nor can that be solid which wants dimensions and that hath no dimensions 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is indivisible illocall for an uncircumscribed nature is invisible saith Theodoret. Now such a body as the Word did assume such a body assumed is in the Word Therefore it is false That the body of Christ in the Word which is illocall did obtaine an illocall way of subsisting that is that it is made and becomes illocall 2. If the body assumed by the Word consisteth of flesh and bones Luke 24. of flesh and bloud Hebr. 2. certainly that body which is feigned to lurk in a crust of bread or under the accidents of bread and to be eaten by the mouth is not that true and solid body assumed by the Word because it hath not flesh and bones 3. If also it remaines in glory such a bodie to wit solid and true consisting of flesh and bones having dimensions then doubtlesse in glory it retaines the definition of a true bodie from which definition the three dimensions and by reason of these circumscription and locality can be no more separated then rationality from man 4. If it be conformable to the glorified bodies of the Saints in substance and qualities it cannot then be illocall immense every-where for our bodies shall not be illocall nor every-where but shall have their Vbs by Christs owne testimony John 17.24 Father I will that they whom thou hast given to me may be with me where I am John 14.2 3. I goe to prepare a place for you and if I goe and prepare a place for you I will come againe and receive you unto my selfe that where I am there you may be They need not then cavill thus That the body is such in its owne substance but in the Word by reason of the union it is not such for whereas it hath its being not in it selfe but in the Word which assumeth it and alwaies had doubtlesse it is and remaineth such in the Word and in the
body and bloud of Christ which are the things signified are not received with in or under the bread and wine with the mouth of the body Reas 1. Because they are not corporally present with in or under the symboles as was shewed Quest 1. Prepos 2. Reas 2. Because they goe not into the belly which is appointed for corporall food 1 Cor. 6.13 but whatsoever entreth into the mouth goeth down into the belly Matth. 15. Reas 3. Because the promise by which the things are offered is not received by the mouth but by faith Propos 3. The things signified to wit the body and bloud of Christ are received by faith spiritually Reas 1. From the genus because in all Sacraments the things signified are received by faith by which alone as we are justified so we receive all the benefits of the New Testament by which faith Christ dwells in our hearts Ephes 3.17 Reas 2. Because the promise of grace is not received but by faith but the communion of the bodie and bloud of Christ is that of the promise of grace See the first volume of Vrsine pag. 103. The Arguments of a certaine famous Disputer for the orall manducation To whatsoever organ the eating of one thing in the Lords Supper doth agree to that same it is needfull that the eating of another thing should agree but to the mouth of the body the eating of one thing that is of the bread in the Supper doth agree and therefore of another thing that is of Christs body Answ The Major is true of foods that are naturally conjoyned or contain each other as meat or flesh-pies but the bread and Christs bodie are not thus conjoyned and therefore of these the Major is false But he proves the Major Whosoever includes under the same word of eating bread and wine the body and bloud of Christ he also affirmes that both are received by the same instrument but Christ includes bread and wine his body and bloud within the same word of eating Therefore Christ affirmes also that both are received by the same instrument of eating Answ 1. The Disputer doth not conclude the Major that is denied which he should conclude by an universall Syllogisme in Barbara therefore his proofe is idle Answ 2. The Major is a petition of the thing in question and is denied The falshood also is plaine out of John 3. where Christ under the same word of birth includes the spirit and flesh and yet it followes not that both are borne after the same manner or by the same instrument Answ 3. The Minor is also false For the word Eat is referred to the consecrated bread and not to the bodie but onely by consequence or analogie for properly it belongs to that which Christ took with his hands and broke which was bread and not his bodie This reason is worth the noting because according to the Papists and the simple Consubstantiators the bodie of Christ is not present till the words of consecration be uttered but in the last instant of uttering these syllables For this is my body it begins to be present But according to the Ubiquitaries who are as it were chymicall Consubstantiators it is present as in any other bread but is not eatable till after the consecration Christ then did not command us to eat that in the bread which as yet was not there or not as yet eatable We say briefly that by the word of eating is onely commanded the orall manducation of the outward Sacrament or the bread but by the word of promise This is my body which is given for you which promise agreeth with that John 6.52 The bread which I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world is required faith spiritually eating Christs bodie given for us and drinking Christs bloud powred out for us for the remission of sins Yet againe the Grammarian goeth about to prove the Major of the Prosyllogisme The word that hath but one signification is to be understood in that one But Manducation as well of the bread as of Christs body hath but one signification Ergo that one is to be understood of both Answ 1. He failes againe in the proofe of his Major because he concludes the Major neither of the Syâ—logisme nor Prosyllogisme by any universall Syllogisme in Barbara as he should have done 2. The Minor is a demand of the thing in question for he takes it for granted that eate ye is meant as well of the body as of the bread which is the thing he should prove and that this is false the story of the Institution tels us for Christ bodily did not lurke within the bread but sate at table when of the bread which he received broke and gave to his Disciples he said Eate yee Question 3. To whom the things signified are offered and by whom received To this we answer in two Propositions both being affirmative Propos 1. The things signified in the Sacrament to wit the body and bloud of Christ though they be offered to all yet are received by the faithfull onely Reas 1. Because the faithful only by faith receive the promise by which the things signified are offered Reas 2. Because the beleevers alone have the Spirit of Christ from which his living flesh cannot be separated Reas 3. Because Christ dwels onely in the faithfull and they in him by faith Ephes 3.17 Reas 4. Because the beleevers alone receive and have life eternall John 3. and 6. Propos 2. Impious or incredulous men coming without faith receive the signes without the thing signified but the things themselves being proferred they reject because of their infidelity For the Reasons see Explicat Catechet q. 81. Titulo What the wicked receive in the Lords Supper As for the Objections concerning wicked mens eating in the Supper see ibid. D. DAVID PARIE'S Epitome of Arminianisme OR The Examination of the five Articles of the Remonstrants in the Netherlands ARTICLE I. GOD by an eternall and immutable Decree in his Son Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world did decree out of the lapsed race of man-kinde subject to sin to save such in for and by Christ as by the grace of the holy Spirit do beleeve in the same Son and persevere in that obedience of Faith to the end by the same grace On the other side he decreed to relinquish and condemne as strangers from Christ such as are not converted but continue in infidelity subject to sin and wrath according to that of the Gospell John 3.36 He that beleeveth in the Son hath life eternall but he that beleeveth not shall not see life eternall but the wrath of God abideth on him The Examination AT first sight this Article seemes to have no question or inconvenience in it but to deliver the summe of the Gospell what sort of men by what meanes God decreed from eternity to save to wit beleevers in the Son of God and perseveres to the end in faith