the shining heating or kindling from the Sunne 2 King 1.10 and 12. verses the old sacred fire of the Altar it was not And herein Ribera was foulely deceived that I may not now question the authoritie of the second Book of Macchabecs How apt Naptha is to conceive fire every Scholler knoweth even as apt as Pitch Brimstone or Powder it being a kinde of liquid bitumen but Nehemiah himselfe called this thing Napthan 2 Macc. 1.36 which little differeth from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greeke or Naptha in Latine and out of doubt poynted plainely that Art and Nature concurred without miracle to kindle that fire though the King of Persia understood not so much 2. The Vrim and Thummim was not in the second Temple say the whole streames with Genebrand Ribera opposeth it grounding onely on Iosephus But the great vaunter of his owne Nation is not a fit man to crosse the current and yet Iosephus himselfe Antiq. 3.9 confesseth that 200 yeares before he writ so the vertue of them failed God being angry for the prevarication of his Lawes as if they angred not God above 200. yeares And yet if it were so there is no mention of them neere the dayes of our Saviour nor were they in the Temple with him and after bis death at the destruction of the Temple other Monuments and sacred reposites being found the Ark was not found Some as polluted were put from the Priesthood and the Governour told them they should not eate of the most holy till there stood up a Priest with Vrim and with Thummim Ezra 2.69 which is repeated Nehe. 7.65 Now though the Governour did hope that the Lord would give the same priviledges to the intended second Temple as he had to the first yet fince we know no such thing we need not beleeve it but may firmely conclude that at the building of the second Temple they then had them not though they stood in expectancy thereof and if they had them in likelihood we should have heard of it Some write saith Vatablus on this last place that this must needs be understood of Christ for the Vrim and the Thummim which Moses put in the breast-plate were not in the second Temple Montanus thinkes Tempore Iremiae desiisse that they ended in the dayes of Ieremy the Prophet and the reason of not finding them againe he ascribeth to this Id agente Deo ut hominum genus sanctiorum etiam rerum quae novi Testamenti tempore oblata sunt desiderio expectatione afficerentur It was Gods good will and pleasure so to have it that men might be affected with the desire and expectation of more holy things which were offered in the time of the new Testament you shall finde the decay of the Vrim and Thummim confirmed by the Tractat Jomah Rabbi Salomoh Joseph Ben-Gorion Abrabureb in his Commentary on Pirke Aboth and Rab. Aben-Ezra Against single Iosephus the Iewes themselves administer an unanswerable argument viz. that in the roome of Vrim Thummim succeeded another kind of Oracle which the Commentator of the Talmud Text from the Sanhedrim thus describeth The voyce from heaven was not heard but the Echo thereof and therefore they called it Bath-col the daughter of the voyce This voyce shewed what was to be done or omitted foretold future things and revealed what was to be thought of things passed Happy most happy was that time when that voyce was heard saith Rabbi Salomon Most of this I had from Balthazar Bambach in the third of his foure most profitable Tractates I hope I shall be charitable enough though I suspect this reflecting voyce the jugling of the Priests in the old Law I am sure Ben Syra when hee tells of the voyce that came from heaven to David let Rhehoboam and Ieroboam divide the Kingdome when David seeing the truth of Mephibosheths cause did right him but by halves and said Thou and Ziba divide the land 2 Sam. 19.29 I am sure I say he doth not establish Bath-col but speakes of an unreflected voyce upon that peremptory injustice of David who did rather in part uphold his owne errors than right Mephibosheth Thou and Zibà divide the land let Rehoboam and Ieroboam divide the Kingdome To which let me adde that the Prophets also did in a sort supply the decay of the Breast-plate 3. The Arke was not in the second Temple So Genebrard Lyra Carthusian Dorothous Martyr cited by Ribera By the Arke is meant both the body of the Arke it selfe and the Pedestall or Subpedaneall being a chariot on which the Cherubims stood 1 Chron. 28.13 beside and the Propitiatory which was over the Arke and the Cherubims and the voyce of God which came from over the Propitiatorie The Arke was not all of pure gold the cover or Propitiatory was all of pure gold called by the 70. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 placamen operculum by the Vulgat oraculum Ribera thinkes it not improbable for one to say that it was a while kept in the second Temple His onely ground is the second Booke of Macchabees But himselfe saith perhaps the controversie is sooner ended if we remember the same Ieremy foretold that in the time of the New Testament the Iewes should not remember the Arke Ier. 3.16 In those dayes they shall say no more the Arke of the Convenant of the Lord neither shall it come to mind neither shall they remember it c. But by his leave this ends the controversie little the sooner for it might be in the second Temple yet not in the time of the New Testament Just as Josephus said before of the Vrim and Thummim if he said true In secundo Templo saith Gaspar Sanctius on the place of Jeremy Arca Domini non fuit in the second Temple there was not the Arke of the Lord. Porchetus part 1. victoriae contra Hebraeos cap. 4. fol. 19. thus In libro Talmud qui dicitur Ioma dicitur in Sanctuario secundo non fuit Arca in the Booke of the Talmud which is called Ioma it is written In the second Temple there was no Arke And Tradition saith that with it was taken away the pot of Manna the Chrismatory or vessell of oyle the rod of Aaron with the Almonds and Buds the golden Emrods which the Philistims offered 1 Sam. 6.17 With the golden Mice ver 18. and Coffer holding them Comestor said that the Arke was carried in triumph of Titus and is now kept at Rome in the Church of S. John of Lateran Ribera himselfe on the fabricke of the Temple 2.2 saith this is false and disproves it by Iosephus Christopher Castrus on Ieremy 3. proveth Satis superque very abundantly that the Arke was not in the second Temple Chrysost oratione 3.3 adversus Iudaeos denieth the heavenly fire the Vrim and Thummim and the Oracle from the Propitiatory to be in the second Temple Now the Propitiatory was a part of the Arke and the Divine presence gave answers from the Oracle and
not themselves from the usance of the Church in this specialtie For Augustine Tom. 7. contra literas Petiliani 2.23 pag. 22. saith to Petilian and his adherents I doe instance and make rehearfall unto you of a man who lived with you into whose hands yee placed or put the Eucharist Ruffinus Ecclesiastica Historiae 6.33 saith of Novatus or Novatianus That when he divided the Sacrament to the people he held the Hands of the Receivers till he made them sweare by what they held in their Hands and then they did Sumere They did accipere manu Sumemere ore Tooke it with their Hand and received it with their Mouth And I doubt not but these holy ancient Fathers followed Christs celebration in such things as he commanded When they did Reserve the Sacrament and carry it to their houses I hope they tooke it not into their Mouths they carried it not in their Mouths but tooke it in their Hands Accepto corpore Domini reservato saith Tertullian in the end of his booke de Oratione It was first received and this was not within their Mouths but with their Hands If it had beene in their Mouths it was not so fit to be Reserved And how vaine had it beene to take it out of their Mouths and to reserve it to that end that they might put it another time into their owne Mouthes or into other folkes Mouthes either If you plead it was reserved for the sicke Gregorius Nazianzenus Oratione 11. in laudem Gorgoniae saith If Gorgonia's Hand treasured up any part of the Antitypes of Christs honoured body and blood shee bedewed it or mingled it with her teares The word If not betokening any doubt but implying a certainty that sometimes shee did weepe over the consecrated mysteries which her Hand had Reserved The word If being taken for When. So it is used 1 King 8.46 If they sinne against thee for there is no man that sinneth not I conclude with the binding Rubrick of out Lyturgy that the Priests or Priest must deliver the Communion to the people in their Hands Kneeling Maldonate on Matth. 26. confesseth it further proofe needed not Yet was Maldonate too blame to say The same Church with better Counsell begins to give the Sacrament not into their hands but into their mouthes because there was both more reverence and lesse danger To call that better Counsell which varied from Christs Institution I like not Nor doth Maldonats similitude hold For if the Churches are the Eucharist fasting varying from Christ yet they had Apostolicall Authority to guide them which the Handlesse and Mouthlesse Receivers wanted Some Reject things really Given and Tendred Matth. 7.9 Yee Reject the Commandements of God Jeremy 8.9 Some rejected the Word of the Lord. Luke 7.30 The Pharisees and Lawyers rejected the Counsell of God against themselves 1 Samuel 10.19 The Israelites rejected their God Is not in those words included a plaine offer and withall a Not-accepting of the Tendry Remarkably is it said Joh. 12.48 He that rejecteth me and receiveth-not my words the same Word shall judge him at the last day Rejecting is expounded by Not-receiving if it signifie not worse also So some Refused to heare Gods Word Jeremy 13.10 Ammon refused to eate 2 Sam. 13.9 though the cakes were powred out before him Elishah though he was urged to take a gift yet refused 2 Kings 5.16 Yet for all this I cannot think but when Christ said to his Disciples Take they did Take it and when he said Eate they did Eate For it argueth Obedience to their Master and their conformity to partake of the mysteries of Christ PAR. 6. THe next part of our Saviours words is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eate That Christ gave Judas a Sop is cleare a dipped Sop Joh. 14.26 that Iudas received it I hold as cleare Iohn 14.30 He then having received the Sop went immediately out That Iudas did eate it is not expressed nor so cleare He might possibly Take it and not Eate it but let it lie on his trencher Besides the Sop beeing given for a Manifesto that Iudas was the onely Traytor perhaps he was not willing to swallow the Disgust as he accompted it and the Sop also But it may be well answered Iudas was so surprized with the unexpected Offer his reason wit and senses so clouded his soule amazed with such arisings and fumes of his treasonable plot in one word so given over to Satan that what another man yea what he himselfe would have done at another Time either not Receive or not Eate he certainly received and in likelihood swallowed If the words of Scripture be closer followed and more forcibly urged That Iudas having received the Sop went out immediately and therefore he did receive it onely but not Eate it I answer The end of his Receiving was onely to Eate it and there was no great distance of time betweene the Receiving and Eating of the Sop but he might put his hand to his mouth even almost in an instant or in tempore penè imperceptibili in the twinckling of an eye and swallow without chewing a moystned soft little glibbery Sop that his going out immediately excludeth not his Eating Besides the word Receive may extend not onely to his Taking of it with his hand but to the Eating of it also For there is a receiving into Ones mouth and it is not possible to be proved that Iudas did not So receive it nor Eate it And it may be well beleeved because so many holy Fathers have declared themselves to think He did Eate the Sop. I know but few that deny it but many affirme it Some indeed say He carried away the Sop and shewed it to the High Priests and thence framed a forged accusation against Christ or an excuse for his own treachery as if without cause he would not have betrayed him A man having his hidden sinnes revealed groweth worse and more madd in sinning Per scelera semper sceleribus tutum est iter said One The safest way to commit sinne Is by new sinnes still to beginne Lucas Brugensis on Matth. 26. saith That after the word Eate the reason was given And the word Enim is to be understood Indeed it may well be understood because at the delivery of the Cup it is expressed Matth. 26.28 For this is my blood of the new Testament And yet the sense seemeth to me as full Take Eate This is my Body as if it had beene written Take Eate For this is my Body I would not willingly adde any new sense to Scripture no more than I would diminish a letter from it especially if as it is the sense may be well accepted Carolostadius and never any before him that I have read of fancieth That when Christ said these words This is my Body he put his finger to his breast shewed himselfe and meaned thus Here sitteth my Body which shall be given for you This Sleidan reporteth in the Fift booke of his Commentaries
And this may seeme to favour him Jesus said to the Iewes Destroy This Temple and in three dayes I will rayse it up Joh. 2.19 And the holy Apostle expoundeth it Christ spake of the temple of his body verse 21. Tolet in his Commentary on the place saith It is certaine that when Christ said This temple he did by his Gesture and the motion of his hands demonstrate Himselfe and pointed not at the materiall Temple built of stone so might he here doe Tolet his Collection is but probable For Christ might point at either at neither but leave them in suspence Many times did Christ use verball aequivocations as I have proved in my Miscellanies that is he so spake that his words might have a double Construction though he adhorred mentall Reservation Concerning Carolostadius I must needs say he was one of them who in those precipitious and whirling times did strive to rayse his owne name by inventing most new devices And this was one of them which is not seconded by any other Christian Divines which I have seene but disliked by many For when Christ said This is my Body which shall be given for you as Carolostadius hath it is as if he pointed at and did meane his naturall passiive body What did they eate They did eate none of That body nor was it Broken till after the Celebration of the holy Eucharist he did suffer But the holy Scripture hath it in the Present tense Luk. 22.19 This is my Body which Is given for you And vers 20. This Cup Is the new Testament in my Blood which Is shed for you Can you think O Carolostadius that when he gave them the Cup he touched his breast and pointed at and meaned the blood in the veynes lanes and hidden alleys of his mortall body So 1 Corinth 11.24 This is my body which Is broken for you And this Cup Is the new Testament in my blood vers 25. Likewise Matth. 26.28 This is my Blood which Is shed and so Mark 14.24 For though it be a truth most certaine that Christ his naturall body and naturall blood was broken given and shed afterwards in his Passion yet Carolostadius was too blame to change the Tense to invent an imagined gesture of Christ which is impossible to be proved Lastly to broach a new opinion contrary to all Divines from which refulteth That they did eate onely bare Bread but no way the Body of the Lord and dranke onely the fruit of the Grape but no way dranke the Blood of the Lord. Indeed the Vulgate hath it Frangêtur in the Future tense is Shall be broken for you But it starteth aside from the Originall Nor standeth it with sense reason or example that the Future is taken for the Present tense since it is a retrograde course against nature But the Present tense is often used for the Future foreshewing the infallible certainty of what will or shall come both in Propheticall and Evangelicall Writings Esay 60.1 The glory of the Lord Is risen upon thee And yet he speaketh of Christ and his comming And Revel 22.12 Behold I come quickly and my reward is with me And Yet he commeth not though it were said above fifteene hundred yeares passed But most undoubtedly He Shall come quickly Celeritate motus though not celeritate temporis when he beginneth to come he shall come speedily though he shall not quickly begin to come PAR. 7. IT succeedeth This is my Body Matth. 26.26 which is Given for you Luk. 22.19 Which is Broken for you 1 Corinth 11.24 This doe in remembrance or for a remembrance of Me as both S. Luke and S. Paul have it And he tooke the Cup and gave thankes and gave it to them saying Drinkeyee All of it for this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sinnes Matth. 26.27 c. It is thus changed Mark 14.23 He gave it to them and They all dranke of it And S. Mark leaves out these words For the remission of sinnes S. Luke maketh the alteration thus Likewise also he gave them the Cup after Supper saying This Cup is the New Testament In my blood which is shed for You Luk. 22.20 Another diversity is yet 1 Corinth 11.25 Likewise after Supper he tooke the Cup when he had supped saying This Cup is the new testament In my blood This doe yee as oft as yee drinke it in remembrance of mee Matth. 26.29 Christ saith I will not drinke henceforth of the fruit of the Vine And this was After the sacred Supper But saith Adam Contzen A Matthaeo non suo ordine ad finem coenae recitantur ea verba de Genimine vitis S. Matthew reciteth not in Order the words concerning the fruit of the Vine nor were they spoken After Supper Perhaps say I they were spoken Twice Here if ever is an ample field to expatiate in these words have tortured the wits of the learnedst men since the dayes of the Apostles Et adhuc sub judice lis est And yet they are not determined And as the Areopagites in an inexplicable perplexity deferred the finall determination till the last day so the Roman Church might have deferred their definitive sentence and over-hard censure even till then especially since they confesse that the manner of Transubstantiation is inenarrable Whereupon I am resolved to forbeare farther disquisition and to lose my selfe in holy devotion and admiration that I may find my Christ The sayle is to large for my boat This Sea is too tempestuous for my Shallop The new Cut of Erasmus Sarcerius in his Scholia on the place of S. Matthew thus shuffleth it The Materiall causes are Bread and Wine and the things under them understood and present the Body and Blood The Formal causes are to Eat and to Drink The Efficient causes Christ who did institute it and his Word The Effectuall causes to have Remission of sins I say this may rather go among the finall causes And to make Effects to be Effectuall causes introduceth new Logick new Termes into Logick Besides he omitteth the Finall cause which is the first mover to the rest Divinity and the mysteries of it are not to bow down to any ones Logick Oh! but will you now say leus in the last Act in the last Scene Will you be silent where he and she Apprentices where Women and illiterate Tradesmen rayse themselves upon their startups prick up their eares and tyre their tongues 1. I answer If I should enter into the lists of controversie and take upon me to decide and determine all the doubts which concerne the holy Sacrament of the Eucharist and to untye all the knots which may be made from those words I am perswaded you might sooner see an end of me than I of this Work For I am wearied and tyred already This toyle which I have performed and the labour which I have bestowed hath cost me full deare My sedentary life hath made my