them It will not be difficult to make answer that that notion can have no place where St. Paul makes it his business as he doth where he recites the Institution to awe Men into a reverential receit of this Holy Sacrament To think that St. Paul would so often call that Bread which was a thing infinitely above it when his Design was to awe Men into a reverential receit of it being to think he either knew not how to suit his Expressions to it or that he basely and invidiously betray'd it I will conclude what I have to say against the substantial change of the Sacramental Elements when I have shewn from the Antients that such a change was unknown to them Which I shall endeavour to evince first from what they say concerning their continuing in the same nature in which they were before and then from what they say concerning their being Types and Symbols and Images of that Body and Blood into which the Romanists affirm them to be transubstantiated That the Antients represented the Sacramental Elements as continuing in the same nature in which they were before will appear first from what I have elsewhere said (n) Part 1. concerning their representing our Eucharist as an Eucharist for the things of this World and particularly for the Fruits of the Earth as well as for the Body and Blood of Christ and professing to eat of the Bread of it even when become the Body of Christ by Prayer as a Testimony of their Thankfulness for the other For how is that an Eucharist for the things of this World and particularly for the Fruits of the Earth which is now all Heavenly neither hath any thing of an earthly sustenance remaining Or how we said to eat of the Bread of it in token of such a Thankfulness if there be nothing at all in it of what we profess to give thanks for All other Offerings beside this having some affinity with that which they pretend to be Offerings of Thanks for Neither will it avail to say which is all that can be said that our Eucharist may become such even for earthly Boons by the remaining species thereof For beside that the Antients make no mention of any such separate species and we therefore not to interpret what they say of Bread and other such substantial things concerning the bare species thereof It is plain from what was before quoted out of Irenaeus that that which was tender'd unto God in this Eucharistical offering was the creatures of Bread and Wine and from Origen that the Eucharistical Offering consisted in eating of what was tendered to him as well as in the tendry it self So that if they were the Creatures of God that were tender'd to him and not only the species thereof they were the same Creatures and not only the species thereof that were in their opinion eaten and drunken by them and consequently by which they gave thanks to God for the Fruits of the Earth as well as for the great Blessing of our Redemption But of all the things that are said by the Antients to shew their belief of the Sacramental Elements continuing in the same nature in which they were before nothing certainly is of more force than the use they make of that relation which is between them and Christ's Body and Blood to shew against the Apollinarians and Eutychians that the divine and humane nature however united in the person of Jesus Christ yet are not so made one as to be confounded and mixed together as the Apollinarians taught his divine nature and flesh to be or the humane nature to be swallowed up into the divine as the Eutychians did For to confute each of these and to shew the distinction there is between the two natures of Christ the Antients alledged the near relation there is between the Sacramental Elements and Christ's Body and Blood but which how near soever doth not confound or destroy the truth of their respective natures but preserves both the one and the other of them entire For thus St. Chrysostome in his Epistle to Caesarius lately published (o) Appendix to the Def. of an Exposit of the Doctrine of the Church of England against de Meaux against the Doctrine of the Apollinarians As before the Bread is sanctified we name it Bread but the divine Grace sanctifying it through the mediation of the Priest it is freed from the title of Bread and thought worthy of the title of the Body of the Lord although the nature of Bread remaineth in it and it is not said to be two Bodies but one Body of the Lord So also here the divine nature being placed in the Body they both together make up one Son and one person but without confusion as well as division not in one nature but in two perfect ones So that as surely as the two natures of Christ continue distinct and unconfounded so the Sacramental Elements and the thing signified by them do because made use of to illustrate the distinction of the other To the same purpose though more clearly and fully doth Theodoret discourse in his Dialogues against the Eutychians For taking notice in one place (p) Dial. 1. c. 8. of our Saviour's calling Bread by the name of his Body and in like manner his Flesh by the name of Meat he proceeds to give this reason of that change of names To wit That he intended thereby to prompt those that partake of the divine Mysteries not to attend to the nature of the things that are seen but by that change of names to give belief to that change which is made by grace For he that called his natural Body Meat and Bread and again nam'd himself a Vine the very same person honour'd the Symbols that are seen with the title of his Body and Blood not changing their nature but adding grace to nature And again (q) Dial. 2. c. 24. after he had acknowledg'd to the Eutychian that the gift that was offer'd was call'd by its proper name before the invocation of the Priest but the Body and Blood of Christ after the sanctification of it and the Eutychians replying thereupon that as the Symbols of the Lord's Body and Blood are one thing before the invocation of the Priest but after that invocation they are chang'd and become other things so the Lord's Body after its assumption is chang'd into the divine essence He hath these very emphatical words You are caught saith he in those nets which you your self have weav'd For neither do the mystical Symbols after their sanctification go out of their own nature For they abide in their former essence and figure and fashion and are visible and palpable as they were before But they are understood to be Blood they have been made to wit Symbols of Christ's Body and what and believ'd and reverenc'd as being what they are believ'd In like manner the natural Body of Christ which is the Archetype thereof hath its former
OF THE SACRAMENTS IN GENERAL In Pursuance of an EXPLICATION OF THE CATECHISM OF THE Church of England By GABRIEL TOWERSON D. D. and Rector of Welwynne in Hartfordshire Imprimatur Ex Aedib Lamb. Julii 24. 1685. Jo. Battely RRmo P. D. Guil. Archiep. Cantuar. Ã Sacris Domesticis LONDON Printed for Richard Chiswell at the Rose and Crown in S. Paul's Church-Yard MDCLXXXVI TO THE Right Reverend FATHER in GOD FRANCIS Lord Bishop of ELY AND LORD ALMONER TO His Majesty My Lord THough I am almost ashamed to make my Address to your Lordship with so small a Treatise as this yet having no more of it finished and this little being the Foundation of the rest I hope your Lordship will accept of it as some acknowledgement of those great Condescentions with which your Lordship hath been pleas'd to honour so mean a Person as my self I might indeed if I had conceived it better so to do have kept it by me till it had grown more complete and so have made it a more suitable Present to a Person of your Lordship's Character in the Church and in the Court But I considered that what I now humbly offer to your Lordship and the Publick must be my Measure in the following Tracts and so may need the advice of others as well as my own thoughts to perfect it and I may gain this advantage by the separate Edition of it to know from some of my Friends what in it is weak or imperfect In which if your Lordship will further vouchsafe your admonition it will make what remains the more fit to be presented to your Lordship by Your Most Obliged Most Obedient and Most humble Servant Gabriel Towerson Welwynne Nov. 2â— 1685. THE CONTENTS OF THE FIRST PART Of the Signification of the Word SACRAMENT THE Word Sacrament in the primitive notion of it the name of the Military Oath as well that which came to be afterwards impos'd as that which was at first voluntarily taken by the Souldiers Which denomination it had both from the sacredness of an Oath in its own Nature and from those Sacred Ceremonies wherewith that and other Oaths were attended The Word Sacrament in the Christian sense of it translated from thence into the Church and applied to those Institutions of it which now go under that name As is made appear from the footing the former signification had gotten in the World From the Scriptures and the Ancient Christians representing the Life and Institution of a Christian under the notion of a Military one And in fine sâ—om the same Antients making use of that Word in the Military sense Evidence of this last from general applications of it and an account given thereupon of the particular instances which they gave of the likeness of the Christian Sacrament to the parely Military one pag. 1. The CONTENTS of the SECOND PART Of the Nature of a SACRAMENT A Sacrament shewn to be a Relative thing more particularly such a Relative thing as hath the relation of an outward and visible sign of that of which it is a Sacrament That therefore assign'd as the Genus of a Sacrament and enquiry thereupon made after those essential attributes which difference it from other outward and visible signs Which is endeavour'd to be evinc'd from the several things to which a Sacrament relates the manner of its relation to each of them and the foundation of that relation The things to which a Sacrament relates shewn in the general to be Sacred or Divine more particularly divine Graces and humane Duties that New Covenant which connects them together and that body of men which is confederated by it To the first of which a Sacrament relates in the nature of a sign a means of conveyance and a pledge To the second in the nature of a simple sign or declaration and by means of that Covenant which it conciliates as an Obligation to them To the third in the nature of such a sign as serves also to give being to or renew it And to the fourth and last in the nature of a Discriminative sign or badge and as a means of bringing particular men into it or continuing them in it The foundation of all these relations shewn to be the Institution of Christ as that again not so much as delivered by him as applied to those elements in which they are subjected by a declaration of the purport of the Institution and by doing such other things to them as either the general precepts of Christianity or the more particular precepts of the institution oblige to the performance of A brief recollection made of all the forementioned particulars and the essential attributes of a Sacrament deduced from thence and exemplified in several definitions of it pag. 9. The CONTENTS of the THIRD PART A farther Explication of the Nature of a SACRAMENT with a resolution of several Questions belonging thereunto or depending more immediately upon it THE Nature of a Sacrament brought again under consideration and enquiry accordingly made concerning that inward and Spiritual Grace to which it relates the manner of its relation to it and the foundation of that relation This last more particularly insisted upon and as it was before resolv'd to be the Institution of Christ so a more ample account given thereupon of that Institution of his and of those Commands and Promises whereof it doth consist Those Commands again considered with reference to the sacramental Elements before they put on that relation or after they are invested with it The former whereof are shewn in the general to enjoyn the setting them apart for that purpose or Consecrating them and enquiry thereupon made by whom they ought to be set apart and whether their intention or good disposition be requisite to give force unto it The latter the Consecrators dispensing them as the Institutor thereof hath prescrib'd and the peoples receiving them from them with the Manner of it Vpon occasion whereof Enquiry is made concerning the necessity of Sacraments and in what sort or degree they ought to be accounted such A like particular account given of the Promises of the Institution which are shewn in the general to assure Christ's making what is done both by the Consecrators and Receivers to be available for those ends for which they were enjoyn'd More particularly his converting that into a Sacrament which is by the former set apart to be so and which how it is done is upon that account enquir'd into and where the Receivers are rightly dispos'd accompanying the dispensation of the Sacramental Elements with the Dispensation of the Divine Graces An application of the whole to the business in hand and Enquiry accordingly made how the former Commands and Promises contribute toward the Founding a Sacramental Relation and how also to the efficacy of the elements after that Relation is produced in them pag. 31. The CONTENTS of the FOURTH PART Of the Jewish SACRAMENTS and the Number of the Christian THE Doctrine of the Sacraments
by the account we before gave of the Symbolizing of our Sacraments with the Military one and particularly by a passage before remembred out of Tertullian that the same word in the Christian sense of it did equally imply the things to which it was attributed to lay an Obligation upon those that took them to intend that warfare to which Christianity called them I add thirdly as no less evident from the premises the same words implying the things to which it was attributed to oblige the party that took them to be faithful to their General Christ and who was the Captain as well as the Author of our Spiritual warfare As is evident among other things from Tertullian's making the divine Sacrament to be accompanied with a profession of our obedience unto Christ our Master and accordingly arguing from thence the unlawfulness of taking upon us the Military one and so answering to another Master after him I say Fourthly that as the Military Sacrament did among other things oblige the party that took it to the avoiding of several things which were inconsistent with the orderly management of an Army and particularly to the avoiding of theft and other such like injustices as appears by the form of it in Gellius (r) Noct. Attic. li. 16. c. 4. so the word Sacrament in the Christian intendment of it did equally imply that to which it was attributed to oblige the persons that took it not to commit Theft or Robberies * Plin. Ep. li. 10. ep 97. Adfirmabant antem hanc fuisse summam vel culpae suae vel erroris quod essent soliti stato die ante lucem convenire c. seque Sacramento non in scelus aliquod obstringere sed ne furta ne latrocinia ne adulteria committerent ne fidem fallerent ne depositum appellati negarent or Adulteries not to falsifie their trusts or when they were called upon to restore to deny any thing that was committed to their custody I observe lastly that as the Military Sacrament was attended with religious rites yea received both its denomination and a great deal of its force from them so the word Sacrament in the Christian intendment of it was meant to denote the like Religious Rites and the Obligation of those that took the Sacrament by them Which is so true that in Tertullian first and afterwards in other Christian Writers the word Sacrament came especially to be applied to the ritual part thereof yea to such things as had little of a Sacrament properly so called beside the ceremonies thereof Of what use these Observations may be will then more clearly appear when I proceed as I mean to do in the following Discourse from the signification of the word Sacrament to the unfolding of the nature of the things intended by it The only use I shall make of them at present is that if we will consider the nature of a Sacrament in its full latitude we ought to consider it as well with respect to our selves and those Obligations it lays upon us as with relation to God and Christ and those Graces which it was intended on their part to signifie or convey to the worthy Receiver of it PART II. Of the Nature of a SACRAMENT The Contents A Sacrament shewn to be a Relative thing more particularly such a Relative thing as hath the relation of an outward and visible sign of that of which it is a Sacrament That therefore assign'd as the Genus of a Sacrament and enquiry thereupon made after those essential attributes which difference it from other outward and visible signs Which is endeavour'd to be evinc'd from the several things to which a Sacrament relates the manner of its relation to each of them and the foundation of that relation The things to which a Sacrament relates shewn in the general to be Sacred or Divine more particularly divine Graces and humane Duties that New Covenant which connects them together and that body of men which is confederated by it To the first of which a Sacrament relates in the nature of a sign a means of conveyance and a pledge To the second in the nature of a simple sign or declaration and by means of that Covenant which it conciliates as an Obligation to them To the third in the nature of such a sign as serves also to give being to or renew it And to the fourth and last in the nature of a Discriminative sign or badge and as a means of bringing particular men into it or continuing them in it The foundation of all these relations shewn to be the Institution of Christ as that again not so much as delivered by him as applied to those elements in which they are subjected by a declaration of the purport of the Institution and by doing such other things to them as either the general precepts of Christianity or the more particular precepts of the institution oblige to the performance of A brief recollection made of all the forementioned particulars and the essential attributes of a Sacrament deduced from thence and exemplified in several definitions of it I Have hitherto entreated of the signification of the word Sacrament Question What meanest thou by this word Sacrament Answer I mean an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual Grace given unto us ordained by Christ himself as a means whereby we receive the same and a pledge to assure us thereof I have shewn what they meant by it who first made use of it and what they also intended who first applied it to those Christian Institutions which are now commonly known by that name But because no names are so expressive of the nature of things as to bring men to a clear and perfect understanding of them And because though some names should be thought to be so expressive yet we cannot well conceive so of this by any thing that hath hitherto appeared concerning the signification of it Therefore to satisfie our selves yet more fully concerning the nature of the thing intended by it we must take another course and particularly by finding out under what head of things it ought to be placed and what are the essential attributes thereof Whereof the former among the Learned hath the name of its Genus the latter of the specifical difference thereof It is the observation of the Judicious Hooker (a) Eccl. Pol. li. 5. sect 57. where he entreats of the nature and necessity of the Sacraments that as no one part of religion hath been more diversly interpreted or disputed of so that diversity hath especially arisen from the mixedness of their natures and from that variety of properties which flow from it Which therefore whilst they who handled this Argument have but imperfectly considered they have not only taken up different notions of a Sacrament but thought themselves obliged to combat those who have assigned it other properties than what they themselves had taken notice of I find no reason to question
form and figure and circumscription and in a word the essence of a Body But after the resurrection it became immortal and above corruption and was thought worthy to sit at the right hand of God and is worshipped by every creature as being called the Body of the Lord of nature So that if the two natures of Christ ought to be look'd upon even now as two distinct and different ones and not one nature swallowed up into the other We also in the opinion of this Holy Man ought to look upon this Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament as two distinct things and upon the Sacrament in particular however dignified with a noble relation yet as of the same nature and figure and form as it was before it was advanced to it For Theodoret arguing the distinction of Christ's two natures from the distinction there is between the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament and particularly from that Sacrament's continuing in its former nature and essence must consequently suppose that to have been a thing then known and confess'd as from which otherwise he could not reasonably have argued the other I am not ignorant indeed that even these passages have met with subtle evasions and such as shew in some measure the art of those that fram'd them But as whosoever shall compare them with those words to which they are apply'd will find them to be rather subtle than solid So they put such a sense upon the words of their respective Authors as if they should be admitted would make them look rather like Sophisters than Fathers of the Church like Men who intended to impose upon their Disciples rather than to enlighten them in the Truth For what other would it have been in Theodoret to have argued against the change of Christ's Body into the divine essence from the continuing of the Symbols of it in their essence and figure and form if he had meant no more thereby than that they remained what they were in their outward appearances as the Romanists are willing to understand him or as they are sometime pleas'd to phrase it in their outward substance For so the Body of Christ also might have remain'd as to the outward appearances thereof and yet have been as substantially chang'd into the divine essence or nature as the Bread of the Sacrament is said to be into the substance of Christ's Body But beside that the Antients represent the Sacramental Elements as continuing what they were and thereby sufficiently impugne that substantial change of them into Christ's Body and Blood which this first Assertion imports They represent them also as Types and Symbols and Images thereof and as we should therefore think as distinct things from them No like being the same with that to which it is said to be like nor indeed any more capable of being so than that which is the most different from it Now how standing the substantial change of the Sacramental Elements can these titles be admitted Or what is there to build that Typicalness or Symbolicalness or resemblance on Certainly no other than those aiery species thereof which in the opinion of those that maintain them have themselves no subject to uphold them But as it doth not appear that the Antients believ'd any such species and one (x) August ep ad Dardan 57. Tolle ipsa corporae qualitatibus corporum non erit ubi sint Et ideo necesse est ut non sint Veruntamen si moles ipsa corporis quantacunque vel quantulacunque sit penitus auseratur qualitates ejus non erit ubi sint quamvis non mole metiendae sint of the Learnedest of them deni'd the possibility thereof So they sometime place the Symbolicalness of the Sacramental Elements in such properties thereof as can belong to no other than their respective substances For thus they apparently do when they represent them as Symbols of Christ's mystical Body upon the account of their being made up of the substance of sevelal granes and several Grapes as that Body of Christ is of the respective members of it This importing the union of several substances into a Mass or Body and consequently that that is much more a substance which is made up of an aggregation of them 2. It appearing from the premisses how little ground there is to believe that the whole substance of the Bread is chang'd into the substance of Christ's Body and the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of Christ's Blood We shall the less need to concern our selves in the examination of that which follows even that those substances of Bread and Wine are so chang'd into the substances of Christ's Body and Blood as to retain nothing of what they were before save only the species thereof For if they can in no sense be said to be substantially chang'd how much less to such a degree as to retain nothing of what they were save only the species thereof But as this Assertion whatever it is hath something peculiar in it in the common understanding of the World So it may not therefore be amiss especially when the Council of Trent seems to have made a peculiar Article of it to consider it apart and both enquire what grounds it hath to support it self and oppose proper reasons to it In order whereunto I will consider it as importing first that nothing of the substance of Bread and Wine remains and secondly as importing that the species or accidents thereof do If they who affirm that nothing of the substance of the Bread and Wine remains mean no more thereby than that nothing thereof remains in the form or essence of Bread and Wine as one would think they should not by their affirming them to be chang'd into the substance of Christs Body and Blood They may then be thought to say somewhat which may seem to have some foundation in those words This is my Body and This is my Blood because those words make no mention of any thing else but them But then as they must also suppose that the matter thereof remains though in another form or essence because otherwise the substance thereof will not be chang'd but annihilated So they must suppose too an addition made thereby to the substance of Christ's Body because a new accession of matter to it Which being granted the change will be made not into the whole substance of Christ's Body and Blood as Transubstantiation was before said to import but only into that part thereof into which they are affirmed to be chang'd On the other side if they who affirm that nothing of the substance of Bread and Wine remains mean thereby that nothing remains in the form of Bread and Wine or any other substance They then do not only destroy the change of them into the substance of Christ's Body and Blood because that change supposeth the former matter of them to abide though in another form or essence but take away all pretence of founding
be preferr'd before the figurative willingly allowd But that no exception ought to be made unless where the Scripture it self obligeth us to depart from the literal sense shewn to be neither true in it self nor pertinent to the present Texts because there is enough in the words that follow them to oblige us to preferr the figurative sense before it The Lutherans special Arguments next brought under Consideration and First that which is drawn from the supposed newness and strangeness of the Christian Sacraments at the first and which consequently requir'd that they should be deliver'd in proper and literal Expressions as without which otherwise there could have been no certain knowledge of them Where is shewn that the Christian Sacraments were neither such new and strange things at the first Institution of them as is pretended There having been the like under the Old Testament nor under any necessity if they had been such of being delivered in literal and proper Expressions because figurative Expressions with a Key to open them might have sufficiently declar'd the nature of them What is urg'd in the second place from the nature of a Testament under the form of which this Sacrament is thought from Luke 22.20 to have been instituted shewn to be of as little force Partly because it is justly questionable whether what we there render Testament ought not rather to be render'd a Covenant and partly because even Civil Testaments are shewn to admit of figurative Expressions A short Answer made to what is alledg'd in the third and fourth place from the Majesty of him that instituted this Sacrament and from the supposed Conformity there is between the several Evangelists and St. Paul in their accounts of the words in question And a more full one to what is offer'd in the fifth place to shew the absurdity of a figurative Sense from the no place there is for it either in the Subject Predicate or Copula The Copula or the word Is thereupon made choice of to place the Figure in and answer made to what is objected against it from the Rules of Logick and from the Scripture That the literal Sense is not as is pretended in the sixth Argument the only one that can quiet the Mind or secure the Conscience briefly shewn And Enquiry next made whether though the literal Sense of the words should be allow'd Consubstantiation could be inferred from them Which that it cannot is made appear from there being nothing in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or This to denote that complexum quid which Consubstantiation advanceth IF Transubstantiation be a hard word and such as will not easily down with the Romanists themselves That which the generality of Men call Consubstantiation but the Lutherans themselves †Confess August Art 10. Cons Cassand ad dict Art a true real and substantial Presence of Christ's Body and Blood will be found to be of no very easie digestion by those that shall take the pains to consider it For though it doth not pretend to annihilate or transform the Sacramental Elements and therefore neither offer that violence to our Senses and the Scripture which Transubstantiation doth Yet which is hard enough to believe it professeth to teach * Gerhard Loc. Commun Tract de Sacr. Caenâ cap. 10. that the Body of Christ is so united to the blessed Bread and the Blood of Christ to the blessed Wine that together with that Bread we receive and eat the Body of Christ by one Sacramental Manducation and together with that Wine receive and drink the Blood of Christ by one Sacramental Draught By which means Christ's glorious Body is not only contrary to the nature of a Body made to be present to many places at once even to Heaven and as many other as this holy Sacrament is celebrated in but for ought that I can discern jumbled together into one Physical Mass with those Sacramental Elements to which it is affirmed to be united which is that Consubstantiation which they seem so desirous to avoid This Union as it is in their own opinion an union of Substances and of corporeal Substances also So so strait a one as to occasion their own affirming that the Body and Blood of Christ are given in with and under their respective Elements which how they should be without the former Consubstantiation is not easie to imagine Now as this opinion of the Lutherans is founded by themselves upon the literal sense of the words This is my Body and This is my Blood and must therefore stand or fall with it So I shall therefore think it enough to enquire 1. Whether those words ought to be taken in the literal sense 2. Whether supposing that they should be so understood that which we call Consubstantiation can be inferred from them 1. That the words This is my Body and This is my Blood Vid. Gerhard ubi supra ought to be taken in the literal sense is affirmed by the Lutherans as well as by the Romanists and both general and special Arguments alledged for it Whereof the former are that the literal sense because the first and most natural is generally to be prefer'd before the figurative one That this ought especially to be observ'd in the Interpretation of the Scripture unless the Scripture it self oblige us to depart from it but most of all in divine Precepts Promises and Articles of Faith Partly because of the danger there may be of running into great errours if the literal sense should not generally be adhered to and partly because it is pretended that there is nothing of the former nature which in some place of Scripture or other is not delivered in plain and literal expressions and by which judgment may be made of what is elsewhere deliver'd in figurative ones And I willingly grant that the literal sense because the first and most natural is generally to be prefer'd before the figurative And I grant too that this ought especially to be observ'd in the Interpretation of the Scripture But that no exception ought to be made from this general rule unless the Scripture it self oblige us to depart from the literal sense is a thing I see no reason for where the matter intreated of is a proper matter of Reason or of that law of Nature which is conducted by it Partly because in such a case Reason and Nature may be presum'd to be competent judges of the thing intreated of and consequently may prescribe against the literal sense of such expressions as shall be found to be manifestly contrary to the dictates of it And partly because the great design of Scripture being to direct us in supernatural things it may well enough be presum'd to leave things of the former nature to be judg'd of for the main by that Reason to whose cognisance they do belong Thus for instance because the preservation of those natures which God hath given us is a thing proper enough for the cognisance of
for the former their representing Baptism as the laver (k) Tit. 3.5 of Regeneration which is a thing we must have from God (l) Joh. 3.5 and as a thing by which we must obtain forgiveness of sins (m) Act. 2.38 which is as undoubtedly (n) Expl. of the Lords Pr. forgive us c. another For the latter the same Scriptures requiring us to look upon the elements thereof as that body of Christ which was (o) Luk. 22.19 given for us and that blood which was shed for many (p) Matt. 26.28 for the forgiveness of sins For as these and the former benefits are such as manifestly come from God so they are alike manifestly represented as the consequents of the former Sacraments and a Sacrament therefore as such to be looked upon as having a relation to that which flows from God to us The only difficulty in my opinion is to shew a Sacrament to relate equally to that which passeth from us to God and imports our duty and service But besides that the Antients apprehended no such difficulty in it because giving it the title of a Sacrament in respect of that Obligation * See the prec Disc which it lays upon the Receivers of it The Scriptures have said enough concerning Baptism and the Lords Supper to confirm us in the belief of this relation of them Only because I would not too much anticipate my Discourse concerning those Sacraments and beside that may have another occasion to speak more largely to this Argument I will content my self at present with what St. Peter hath observ'd of Baptism (q) 1 Pet. 3.21 and which I have elsewhere (r) Explic. of the Prel Quest and Answers c. given a more particular account of For if as that Apostle insinuates and hath accordingly been more largely confirmed the stipulation or answer of a good conscience toward God be a considerable part of Baptism If it be so considerable a part of it as to give it much of that savingness which it hath Then must that Sacrament be thought because the stipulation of a good Conscience is of that nature to relate to something that must come from us as well as to those things which flow from God to us It is true indeed that our Church where it sets it self to define a Sacrament takes no notice of this object of it Whether it were through a simple inadvertency and from which our Church doth no where pretend it self to be free or which I rather think that it might give so much the more particular an account of that other and more considerable object of it even that inward and Spiritual Grace which it was intended to signifie and exhibit and assure For that our Church did not wholly forget this second object of a Sacrament even that duty and service of ours which it doth equally signifie and prompt us to declare is evident from its before minding the Catechumen of his Baptismal vow (ſ) Prelim. Quest and Answ of the Cat. and from the declaration it elsewhere (t) Office of Publ. Bapt. makes that they who are to be baptized must also for their parts promise the renouncing of the Devil and his works and both Faith and Piety toward God That as it shews her to have looked upon Baptism as a federals rite or ceremony so that she equally believed it to relate to our duty and service as well as to those divine benefits we receive from the Author of it Let it remain therefore for an undoubted truth and the acknowledged Doctrine of our Church that a Sacrament relates as well to what is to pass from us to God as to what is to come from God to us and that accordingly it may be so far forth defined such an outward and visible sign whereby we make a declaration of our piety toward God as Mr. Calvin (u) Instit li. 4. c. 14. §. 1. hath very well observed I may not forget to add for the farther clearing of this head that as a Sacrament relates first and chiefly to that which passeth from God to us so we are to conceive of that to which it so relates under the notion of a Grace given unto us yea of an inward and spiritual one That we ought to conceive of it under the notion of a grace given unto us is evident from those Texts which I but now made use of to shew that a Sacrament relates to that which passeth from God to us For instancing in such things as have the nature of benefits and so far forth therefore are to be looked upon as Graces or Favours instancing moreover in such benefits as are manifestly the issues of the Divine Goodness yea which the Scripture expresly affirms to be given to us by him for so it doth as to that (w) Luk. 22.19 Body of Christ which is the foundation of them all they must consequently oblige us to conceive of that to which a Sacrament relates as a Grace given unto us But neither will there be less evidence from thence if those Texts be well considered that that Grace to which a Sacrament relates is an inward and Spiritual one For as our Church means no other by an inward and Spiritual Grace than that which conduceth in an especial manner to the welfare of our inward man or Spirit as is evident from its making the Body and Blood of Christ the inward and Spiritual Grace of the Lords Supper and which it cannot be in any other sense than that it hath such an effect upon us so the Texts before alledged attribute such Graces to the Sacraments as are in that sense at least inward and Spiritual ones Witness their attributing to them the Graces of regeneration and forgiveness which are as it were the formal causes of our welfare and the grace of Christs Body and Blood which is the meritorious cause thereof and under God and by his acceptation in the place of an Efficient also I observe farther that as a Sacrament relates to such things as have the nature of divine Graces or humane duties so those graces and duties being parts of the New Covenant and receiving all their force from it a Sacrament must consequently relate to that New Covenant to which they do belong and from which they receive all their force Of which yet if there remain any doubt it will not be difficult to clear it from what the Scripture assures us concerning Baptism and the Lords Supper St. Peter (x) 1 Pet. 3.21 representing the former under the notion of a Stipulation or Contract as our Saviour the Cup of the other (y) Luk. 22.20 Matt. 26.28 as the New Covenant in his Blood for the remission of those sins for which it was shed For that that is in truth the meaning of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not as we usually render it the New Testament in it is not only evident from the word 〈◊〉
of the death of the same Mediators In fine that I render the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for it is never of force whilst he who so makes it lives is because those words as the former are a continuation and confirmation of the foregoing Argument and so still to be understood with reference to the same Mediator All which things I have laid together not so much out of a desire of being thought the Author of a new Interpretation from which no man is more averse where there is not some kind of necessity for it but to clear up an acknowledged and important truth and which the Text I have so long insisted upon hath helped more than any thing to obscure For as there is nothing more certain from the Scripture nor more attested to by our own Translators than that the dispensation of the Gospel ought to be looked upon under the notion of a Covenant As there is nothing in like manner of more importance to us to know and consider because it will prompt us to the doing of our part in the Covenant if we mean that God should do his so setting aside this Text of the Hebrews there is not one where this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is mentioned which will not as commodiously or more be interpreted of a Covenant than it can be thought to be of a Testament Only if some men swayed by their former prejudices or by the Latins giving the Codex of the Old and New Law the title of the Old and New Testament †Tertull. de jejun c. 11. Secundum utriusque Testamenti paraturam though they also give them the more general title of Instrumenta * Idem Apol. c. 19. Primam Instrumentis istis auctoritatem summa Antiquitas vindicat Ib. c. 21. Sed quoniam edidimus antiquissimis Judaeorum Instrumentis sectam istam esse suffultam Adv. Marc. li. 1. c. 13. Quantas autem foveas in ista vel maxime epistola ad Romanos nempe Marcion fecerit auferendo quae voluit de nostri Instrumenti integritate parebit But if some men I say swayed by the one or the other think fit to continue to the former Text and some others the notion of a Testament As I shall not contend with them about it for the reverence I my self bear to the judgment of the Antients so I shall ask as is but reason their acknowledging in like manner that the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 do equally import a new Covenant and particularly where mention is made of the Cup of the Lord's Supper being the blood of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in it Partly because that old 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to which it was opposed had the nature of a Covenant and could not unless very improperly be stiled a Testament And partly because it was not only sealed with blood but that blood also stiled the blood of (k) Exo. 24.8 the Covenant For that is enough to perswade especially when we otherwise know that the dispensation of the Gospel is undoubtedly a Covenant that our Saviour when he represented the Cup of his Last Supper as the blood of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 meant the blood of the New Covenant and consequently that that Sacrament and the other have a relation to it I will conclude what I have to say concerning those things to which a Sacrament relates when I have taken notice of its relating to that body of men with whom this New Covenant is made as well as to the Covenant it self For that it doth so we have the former instances of Baptism and the Lord's Supper to assure us or rather what we learn from the Scriptures concerning them St. Paul giving us to understand that it is into that body that we are baptized (l) 1 Cor. 12.13 as in like manner that though we be many yet we become one bread and that one body (m) 1 Cor. 10.17 by partaking of the bread of the other Sacrament II. It appearing from the premises what those things are to which a Sacrament relates and the way therefore so far plained toward the discovery of the properties thereof enquire we in the next place into the nature of that relation which I have affirmed it to bear unto the other For my more advantageous discovery whereof I will resume each of those things to which it doth relate and shew what kind of relation it beareth to them Now as the first of those things is an inward and Spiritual Grace that is to say such a one as conduceth in an especial manner to the welfare of our inward man or spirit so we shall find a Sacrament as to it to have the nature of a sign or visible representation of it A thing so acknowledged by all by whom the Sacraments are acknowledged in any measure that it will hardly be worth our while to insist upon it It may suffice here to say that as a sign is so much of the Essence of a Sacrament that it is the very Genus of it and must therefore be supposed to be such as to all those things to which it relates so we shall find the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper to represent even to our eyes those inward and spiritual graces which are attributed to them For thus the water of Baptism doth by that cleansing quality which is natural to it and which as such is a representation of that spiritual Grace which purgeth (n) Heb. 9.14 the Conscience from dead works which are as it were the filth (o) 2 Cor. 7.1 and pollution of it And thus too the Elements of the Lord's Supper do as by other ways and means so by that which is done unto them The breaking of the one serving to set forth the breaking of Christs body upon the Cross as the pouring out of the other doth the shedding of his blood at those passages which were made for it by the Nails and Spear that pierced him But beside that a Sacrament hath the relation of a sign to that inward and spiritual Grace which belongeth to it it hath also the relation of such a sign as is moreover an apt instrument to convey that grace which is signified by it I instance for the proof hereof in the Scriptures attributing such effects to Baptism and the Lord's Supper as are the immediate issues of those graces which are signified by them For if it attribute such effects to them it must consequently intimate them to be the conveyers of those Graces from whence they result as which otherwise they could not be in a condition to produce Now that the Scriptures attribute such effects to the Sacraments before remembred as are the immediate issues of those graces which are signified by them will appear as to Baptism by their attributing to it a power of washing away (p) Acts 22.16 the sins of men For whether we understand thereby the
the Quakers who live among our selves For as the poor Greeks by reason of the ignorance of their Priests and the unintelligibleness as well as the hudling up of their Liturgies have little other means beside those Sacraments and other such symbolical rites to keep up the profession of Christianity among them which yet it may be they are more tenacious of than those who are better instructed among us would be under the like circumstances so those much more miserable persons the Quakers having thrown off the visible signs of Christianity have upon the matter come to throw off Christianity it self and whatsoever it obligeth us either to believe or do in order to our obtaining the salvation promised by it If they have made a shift to rear or keep up so much as their own Profession it was owing in the beginning to that Quaking which gave denomination to them and since that to their affected looks and habits and behaviour which are if I may so speak the visible signs or Sacraments thereof And if once they fall off from these as we see they begin to do we shall soon find their profession to fail together with it and to be buried in the same grave But to return to that more sacred body of which I but now entreated and to which as I affirm'd a Sacrament to have the relation of a general badge or discriminative sign of the profession of it so I must also to be a means of bringing particular men into it or continuing them in the communion of it It being into this body as was before observ'd out of St. Paul that all Christians are baptiz'd and so therefore first entred by that Sacrament And in that body too that they continue by the receipt of the other Sacrament because it is by their partaking of the bread of it that the same St. Paul affirms that they become that one Bread and Body For being members of that body by the former Sacrament they cannot otherwise be said to make it up by the partaking of the latter than as that may serve to keep them within the communion of it III. An account being thus given of the things to which a Sacrament relates together with the nature of that relation it beareth to them It remains that I enquire what the foundation of that relation is which is the only thing farther to be known toward the discovery of the properties of a Sacrament For the understanding whereof we are to know that as the relation whereof we speak is of different sorts to wit the relation of a sign of a means of conveyance and of a pledge for such I have shewn a Sacrament to be as to that grace of God to which it principally referrs so it may have different foundations agreeably to that diversity which I have said to be in the nature of the relation For as a sign it is founded in part in the resemblance which it bears to the things signified by it for so all signs of representation are and in part also in the Institution of him whose the Sacrament is Because as the former resemblance is not so apparent as by its own force to have suggested to us the things signified by it so it could not without his institution whose the Sacrament is have laid any obligation upon us to consider it in that relation of it I say not the same concerning that relation of a Sacrament whereby it becomes a means of conveying to us the Divine grace or a pledge to assure us thereof Because each of these relations is founded simply and only in the Institution of him whose the Sacrament is For a Sacrament having no natural aptitude either to convey the Divine Grace to us or to assure us that if we receive that Sacrament we shall receive the other also It must consequently if it become such a means or pledge become so by the Institution of him by whom it is suggested to us But because I have said nothing hitherto whos 's that Institution is by vertue of which a Sacrament puts on the forementioned relations And because it is alike certain that whosoever's that Institution is yet it produceth not those effects by its own immediate force but by the intervention of some Act or Acts of those whom he hath intrusted with the dispensation of them Therefore to satisfie our selves yet farther concerning the foundation of those relations enquire we in the next place whose that Institution is upon which they are founded and how that Institution ought to be appli'd to enable it to produce them As concerning the Person whosethat Institution is little needs to be said considering what the Scripture hath said concerning Baptism and the Lord's Supper which are the only clear Sacraments of our Religion For Baptism and the Lord's Supper being apparently Christ's own Institutions and so declared to be by those Scriptures which give an account of them Whatsoever hath the relation of a Sacrament must have him for its Author or as our Church hath expressed it be ordained by him Besides a Sacrament as such being both a conveyer and a pledge of Grace the dispensation whereof is entrusted unto Christ (l) Eph. 4 7. 15 16. either that which pretends to be a Sacrament must have him for its Author or it must not be look'd upon under that relation And thus far we find even those of Rome to go because not only representing all the Sacraments of the New Law as instituted by Jesus Christ our Lord but pronouncing an Anathema also (m) Conc. Trid. Sess 7. Can. 1. de Sacr. upon those that shall deny it It being therefore not at all to be doubted whose that Institution is upon which the relations of a Sacrament are founded enquire we in the next place how that institution ought to be appli'd to enable it to produce those relations Which must be first by a declaration of the purport thereof and secondly by doing those things to the elements which either the general tenour of the Christian Religion or the particular precepts of the Institution prompt us to the performance of That I represent the first of these as one of those things which makes the Institution of Christ to become effectual toward the producing of the former relations or as it is more commonly expressed toward the consecration of those elements which are to put them on is partly upon the account of the necessity of such a declaration and partly upon the account of the Commands of him by whom the Sacraments were instituted For a Sacrament being not so clear a representation of that of which it is so as by its own force to suggest it to the minds of those for whom it was intended Being much less so clear a representation of it as to invite those to reflect upon it who are either slow of understanding or otherwise indisposed to contemplate it such as are the generality of men It cannot but be thought necessary
I have the more willingly taken notice of it because it comes so near even in its expression to what our Catechism hath represented as the inward and spiritual Grace thereof There being no great difference between a death of crimes and life of vertues which is the expression of that Father and a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness which is the other's And I shall only add that as the Doctrine of the Church must therefore be thought to bear sufficient testimony to Baptism's being a means of our regeneration So its practice is in this particular answerable to its Doctrine and though in another way proclaims the same thing Witness what hath been elsewhere observ'd concerning its giving Milk and Hony (t) See Part 3. to the new Baptized person as to an Infant new-born its requiring him presently after Baptism to say (u) Expl. of the Lord's Prayer in the words Our Fa heâ— De vitâ B. Martini c. 1. Necdum tamen regeneratus in Christo agebat quendam bonis operibus Baptismatis candidaâ—um Our Father c. as a testimony of his Son-ship by it And in fine its making use of the word regenerated to signifie Baptized As is evident for the Greek Writers from what was but now quoted out of Justin Martyr and from Sulpitâ—us Severus among the Latins Which things put together make it yet more clear that whatever it may be now accounted yet the Church of God ever look'd upon the Sacrament of Baptism as a mean of our internal regeneration And indeed as it is hard to believe that it ought to be otherwise esteem'd considering what hath been alledg'd either from Scripture or the declarations of the Church So it will appear to be yet harder if we consider the opinion of the Jews concerning that which may seem to have been both it's Type and exemplar For as I have made it appear before (w) Part 1. that even they were not without their Baptism and such a one as was moreover intended for the same general ends for which both their Circumcision was and our Baptism is So I have made it appear also (x) Ibid. that the persons so baptiz'd among them were accounted as persons new-born yea so far that after that time they were not to own any of their former relations In fine that that new birth was look'd upon as so singular that it gave occasion to their Cabalistical Doctors to teach that the old soul of the Baptized Proselyte vanished and a new one succeeded in its place For if this was the condition of that Type of Christian Baptism how much more of the Antitype thereof Especially when it is farther probable as hath been also (y) Part 2. noted from the discourse of our Saviour to Nicodemus that he both alluded in it to that Baptism of theirs and intimated the conformity of his own Baptism to it in that particular And though after so full an evidence of this relation of Baptism to regeneration it may seem hardly worth our while to alledge the expressions of the Heathen concerning it Yet I cannot forbear for the conformity thereof to the present argument to take notice of one remarkable one of Lucian (z) Lucian Philopatr p. 999. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who brings in one Triepho thus discoursing after his scoffing manner But when saith he that Galilean lighted upon me who had a bald Pate a great Nose who ascended up to the third Heaven and there learn'd the most excellent things meaning as is suppos'd S. Paul he renewed us by water made us to tread in the footsteps of the blessed and deliver'd us from the Regions of the ungodly In which passage under the title of renewing men by water he personates the Christian Doctrine concerning their being regenerated or renewed by Baptism and accordingly makes it the subject of his reproach PART VII Of our Vnion to the Church by Baptism The Contents Of the relation of the sign of Baptism to our Vnion to the Church and that relation shewn to be no less than that of a means whereby that Vnion is made This evidenc'd in the first place from the declarations of the Scripture more particularly from its affirming all Christians to be baptiz'd into that Body as those who were first baptiz'd after the descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles to have been thereby added to their company and made partakers with the rest in the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship in breaking of Bread and in Prayers The like evidence of the same Union to the Church by Baptism from the declarations of the Church it self and the consequences of that Vnion shewn to be such as to make that also to be accounted one of the inward and spiritual Graces of that Baptism by which it is made HAving thus given an account of such inward and spiritual Graces of Baptism as tend more immediately to our spiritual and eternal welfare It remains that I say somewhat of that which though of no such immediate tendency yet is not without all because qualifying us for the reception of the other That Vnion I mean which we thereby obtain to Christ's mystical body the Church and by which we who were before Aliens from it as well as from God and Christ become members of the Church and partakers of the several priviledges thereof Which Vnion if any Man scruple to reckon among the inward and spiritual Graces of Baptism properly so call'd I will not contend with him about it Provided he also allow of it as a thing signified by it on the part of God and Christ and as moreover a Grace and favour to the person on whom it is bestow'd For as that is all I ask at present concerning the Union now in question So what I farther mean by it's being an inward and spiritual Grace shall be clear'd in the process of this Discourse and receive that establishment which it requires In order whereunto I will shew the outward and visible sign of Baptism to be a means whereby that Union is made and then point out the consequences of that Union That the outward visible sign of Baptism is in the nature of a means whereby we are united to the Church will appear if we reflect upon what the Scripture hath said concerning it or the agreeing declarations of the Church it self For what else to begin with the former can S. Paul * 1 Cor. 12.13 be thought to mean where he affirms all whether Jews or Gentiles or of what ever other outward differences to have been baptiz'd by one spirit into one body For as it is plain from the foregoing †1 Cor. 12.12 verse or verses that S. Paul entreats of Christ's Body the Church and consequently that the baptizing here spoken of must be meant of our Baptizing into it So it is alike plain from what it was designed to prove as well as from the natural force of the expression that it was
of me farther shew that he meant that Body which was shortly to be given or crucified for them It being the Lord's Death as St. Paul himself interprets it (w) 1 Cor. 11.26 that they were to shew forth thereby and consequently that they were to do what they were now taught in remembrance of him and that And indeed as I do not therefore see how we can honestly understand those words my Body of any other than that Body which he now carried about him and was shortly after to offer So I am farther confirm'd in it by the evil consequences of a figurative interpretation of them which are these two especially First that we shall thereby leave no clear account in them nor indeed in any of the words of the Institution of the thing signified by the Sacrament and which all Men acknowledge to be the Crucified Body of Christ And secondly that we shall give more countenance than we are willing to do to that propitiatory Sacrifice which the Romanists advance in this affair For if by the words my Body be meant the memorial of Christ's Body I do not see why we should not in like manner attribute to that memorial as the Romanists do its being given or broken for us and for our Salvation and consequently make it a propitiatory Sacrifice for us Let it therefore be allow'd or at least till we see better reason to the contrary that as by the word This we ought to understand This Bread even the Bread which our Saviour gave to his Disciples so we ought in like manner to understand by the words my Body my Crucified one that which I now carry about me and am shortly after to offer up Which will consequently leave nothing more to enquire than what our Saviour meant by the word Is and how the Bread before spoken was and is that Body of Christ And here I look for no other than that those with whom we have to do should triumph wonderfully as supposing they have in part at least gain'd their purpose The Romanists by allowing in this Sacrament the crucified Body of Christ the Lutherans by our allowing of that and of the Bread But with how little reason will appear if together with us they will enquire into the word Is and how that whereof our Saviour spake was and is that Body of Christ For the better understanding whereof I will shew 1. That the word Is is oftentimes taken figuratively 2. That it ought to be so taken here 3. What it imports in that figurative interpretation of it 1. That the word Is is many times figuratively taken is evident from what is said concerning the seven Kine and seven Ears (x) Gen. 41.26 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Pharaoh's dream being seven Years and the Bones in the Vision of Ezekiel (y) Ezek. 37.11 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being the whole House of Israel And that I may not now name any more concerning the Sower that sowed the good seed in a Parable of our Saviour being * Mat. 13.37 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the Son of Man the Field the World the good Seed the Children of the Kingdom and the like These things as they are link'd together by the words Is and Are according to their respective number as This and my Body are So by all Men understood not literally but figuratively and such as rather signified and represented the things they are said to be than were in propriety of nature such Which suppos'd the same word here may be taken in the like sense and we therefore under no necessity of allowing the Transubstantiation of the Bread into the Body of Christ or the Consubstantiation of the Body of Christ with it 2. But it may be though the word Is may sometime be taken figuratively yet there is no reason for taking it so here or at least no necessity for it Therefore enquire we in the next place whether it ought to be so taken here or rather because I have already undertaken to demonstrate it endeavour to shew that it ought Which I shall make it my business to evince First from the impossibility of the Proposition's being true if it be taken in the literal sense Secondly from the sutableness of the figurative sense to the nature of that which is the subject matter of it Thirdly from the fitness of the word Is to express it That the Proposition cannot be true if the word Is be taken in the literal sense is evident from a known rule of Logick and Reason even that two disparates such as Bread and a humane Body are cannot properly be predicated of one another For neither can Bread continuing such be a humane Body any more than it can be a Stone or a Serpent or any thing else Or than a Mouse can be a Lion or Elephant or the like Which is so true and confess'd that they who stand for the proper and literal signification of the words do not only some of them acknowledg it in express terms but indeed also both Romanists and Lutherans offer a greater violence to them for the avoiding of such an absurdity The one by denying the word This to signifie This Bread though that as was before said were the only thing before spoken of and the thing too that was given to the Disciples to eat upon the pronouncing of it The other by representing the sense of it as being rather in this or under this Bread is my Body than This is my body as the words import But beside that the Proposition cannot be true if the word Is be taken in the literal sense and therefore of necessity to have a figurative one assigned to it The figurative sense is extremely sutable to the nature of that which is the subject matter of it For what is it as was before observ'd that our Saviour affirmed to be his Body but that Bread which he had before taken and blessed and broken As that too not considered in its own natural being or use but as a Sacrament or sacred sign of something else and particularly of the Body of Christ Now what sense where there is any doubt of the meaning of a Proposition concerning that can be more sutable to it than a figurative one What more easy or more adapted to the nature of it And if there be none what more reasonable to be pitch'd upon or indeed more necessary to be affixed to it The sense of words being no doubt to be fitted to the nature of those things which they are employed by the speaker thereof to denote But that which will put the thing in controversie yet more out of doubt at least among unprejudiced Men is the fitness of the word Is to express that figurative sense which we have affixed to it For be it that the word Is denotes essence or being which is the utmost that can be made of it by those who are for the proper signification of it and the
Blood by the separate administration of them when they are For as our Saviour's Body and Blood were parted by Death and accordingly requir'd to be consider'd the one as broken and mortifi'd the other as shed or poured out of it So our Saviour did not only appoint divers Symbols to represent them but administred them apart and by themselves and if there be any force in Do this in remembrance of me commanded them to be so administred afterwards By which means they become even by that separate administration a yet more perfect and lively Representation of Christ's Body and Blood as to the usage they receiv'd when he whose they were was subjected to Death for us But because the Body and Blood of Christ are consider'd in this Sacrament as to the Benefit that was intended and accru'd to us by them as well as to the usage they receiv'd For This is my Body which is given or broken for you say St. Luke and St. Paul and This is my Blood of the New Testament or the New Testament in it which is shed for you say all the Evangelists upon this Argument Therefore enquire we wherein the Elements of Bread and Wine are a sign of his Body and Blood as to that Benefit they were so intended and given for Which will soon appear if we consider what the proper use of those Elements is what we are requir'd to do with them and what is elsewhere said concerning that Body and Blood when consider'd with respect to our welfare and advantage These several things making it evident that they become a sign of Christ's Body and Blood by the use they are of to nourish and refresh us For as we cannot lightly think but that when our Saviour made choice of such things as those to represent the usefulness of his Body and Blood to us he made choice of them for that purpose with respect to their proper usefulness as which is both most notorious in them and most apt to affect the Mind of him to whom they are suggested So much less can we think otherwise of them when he moreover requires us to eat of the one and drink of the other which are the ways by which we are to receive that nourishment and refreshment which we have said them to be so useful for Otherwise any thing else might have been as proper for the purpose as Bread and Wine Or if God who may no doubt make use of what Methods he pleaseth thought good however to make choice of Bread and Wine to represent Christ's Body and Blood yet he might have contented himself to have enjoyn'd upon us the casting our Eyes upon them and not as we find he doth prompted us to eat and drink of them as that too in remembrance of him and them For what need would there be of eating and drinking those Elements in remembrance of his Body and Blood or indeed what aptness in so doing to call them to our own Minds or the Minds of others were it not that there were somewhat in them to represent the usefulness of Christs Body and Blood which was not to be drawn from them or so sensibly perceiv'd in them as by eating and drinking of them This I take to be a competent evidence of Bread and Wine 's becoming a sign by the use they are of to nourish and refresh us But I am yet more convinced of it by what is elsewhere said concerning Christ's Body and Blood when consider'd as they are here as to our Benefit and advantage Even that his Flesh or Body was food * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 indeed and his Blood drink indeed (g) Joh. 6.55 and that accordingly except his Disciples ate that Flesh of his and drank his Blood (h) Joh. 6.53 they could have no life in them but if they did (i) Joh. 6.54 they should have eternal Life In fine that the flesh (k) Joh. 6.51 which he should give for the life of the World was in the nature of Bread to them and so represented by him throughout that whole Discourse For if Christ's Body and Blood be in the nature of Food and drink to us If they be so far such that we are requir'd to eat and drink of them and so also that we cannot promise our selves life without them That Bread and Wine which in the present Sacrament are appointed to signifie and represent them cannot be thought by any more proper way to be a Sign or Representation of them than by their usefulness as Bread and Drink to nourish and refresh our Bodies to maintain them in their present beings and fill them with joy and gladness 4. The fourth thing to be enquir'd as concerning the Bread and Wine of this Sacrament is what evidence there is of Christ's commanding us to receive them A question which one would think might soon be voided by the words of the Institution it self Take Eat This is my Body being the voice of our Saviour concerning the Bread and Drink ye all of it and This do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me being the words of the same Jesus in St. Matthew and St. Paul concerning the Cup which one would think to be sufficient expresses of Christ's command concerning it But as nothing is enough to those who are prejudic'd against any Doctrine as it is apparent that the Church of Rome was against the use of the Cup when this business came to be debated in the Council of Trent So that Council did not only determine that whole and entire Christ is contained under either species and particularly under the species of Bread (l) Sess 13. cap. 3. but that the faithful are not oblig'd by any command of the Lord to receive both species (m) Sess 21. cap. 1. and that accordingly if any shall say that all and singular the faithful people of Christ are oblig'd to take both species either by vertue of any command from God or as of necessity to Salvation (n) ib. Can. 1. he ought to be anathematiz'd for it or rather hath already incurr'd it For which cause it will be necessary for us to shew that the faithful are obliged by the Command of Christ to receive the Cup and then answer the principal reasons that are brought against it And here in the first place I would gladly know whether there be or ever were any command from Christ for the receiving of the Cup whether by the Apostles at first or the Priest that consecrates now whatsoever become of simple Laymen or the Priests that do not officiate and are therefore so far forth reckoned in the number of the other The ground of which question is because the Council of Trent doth not say that there is no command from Christ for the faithful's receiving the Cup but that the faithful are not bound by any command of his to the taking of both species and again that if any shall say that all the faithful
necessity nor ever was of any Man 's receiving the Cup whether he be Priest or private Person Consecrater of the Bread and it or only a simple Communicant Then every one too that heretofore did or now doth receive in both kinds doth in one and the same Eucharist receive the Blood twice once in the Species of Bread and again in the Species of Wine In fine by the same Rule and their affirming whole Christ to be contained under either Species Hoc est corpus meum may be as proper to make a Transubstantiation of the Cup as it is a Transubstantiation of the Bread The two former whereof render our Saviour's injunction concerning the receit of the Cup perfectly unnecessary The last gives us occasion to wonder why our Saviour who to be sure affected no change of Phrase did not make use of the same Hoc est corpus meum to make an alteration of the Cup especially when if he had it might have so aptly hinted to us the sufficiency of one only Species to possess us of his Body and Blood These I take to be the natural Consequences of making Hoc est corpus meum to signifie at all times This is my Body and Blood and by vertue thereof to possess the Receivers of that over which they are pronounc'd of whole and entire Christ And if on the other side they with whom we have to do make those words to signifie so only where the Sacrament is administred but in one kind and only to those to whom it is so administred they must consequently make the very same words Hoc est corpus meum to signifie one thing to the Lay-man who receives but in one kind and another to the Priest that consecrates and receives in both Which beside that it will make the signification of those words to be arbitrary and according as the Priest shall intend them will make them vary from the signification they had in the Institution of Christ which is and ought to be the Pattern of all Our Saviour as he both instituted and distributed the Sacrament in both kinds so to be sure making the words Hoc est corpus meum to signifie only This is my Body apart from my Blood as which latter he both appointed a distinct Element for and as they love to speak converted that distinct Element into by words equally fitted for such a Conversion I think I shall not need to say much to shew the Bread of the Sacrament not to be converted into Christ's Body and Blood by the force of the words This is my Body and This is my Blood as if the latter extended to the Species of the former as well as to its own proper Sacrament even the Liquor of the Cup Both because those words are not appli'd even by themselves to the Bread but to the Cup and cannot therefore in reason be thought to have any operation upon the former And because our Saviour in that Eucharist which he consecrated for his Disciples gave them the Bread of it to eat before he proceeded to the Consecration of the Cup and before therefore it could be suppos'd to receive any influence from those words This is my Blood as which were not till some time after pronounced by him One only Device remains to bring Christ's Blood as well as Body under the Species of Bread called by the Schoolmen Concomitancy but ought rather by the Romanists explication of it and indeed by the words natural connexion before us'd by the Council of Trent to be termed a real Vnion By vertue of which if Christ's Blood and Body are brought together under the Species of Bread Christ's Body in the Sacrament even that which the words Hoc est corpus meum produc'd is no more that Body which was broken upon the Cross at least consider'd as such for that to be sure was separated from his Blood but his Body entire and perfect And then farewell not only to the natural signification of Hoc est corpus meum and quod pro vobis frangitur but to the Sacrifice of Christ's Body in the Eucharist which yet they have hitherto so contended for as not to think it to be such only by a Figure or Memorial of it Such reason is there to believe how confidently soever the contrary is affirm'd that Christ's Body and Blood are not contain'd under the single Species of Bread And yet if that could be prov'd it would not therefore follow that it were an indifferent thing whether we receiv'd the Cup or no. For the design of the several Species and our receit of them (u) 1 Cor. 11.26 being to shew forth to others the Lord's Death as well as to possess our selves of his Body and Blood If that be not to be compass'd without the receit of the Cup it will make the use of it to be so far necessary what ever we may gain by the Bread alone He satisfying not his Duty who complies with one end of any thing to the neglect of another as that too which tends apparently to the Honour of the Institutor as to be sure the Commemoration of our Saviour's Death and Passion doth Now that the Death of our Saviour cannot be otherwise shewn forth or at least not as he himself represented it without the receit of the Cup as well as Bread may appear from his own representing his Death as a thing effected by the shedding or pouring out of his Blood For so it is in the several Evangelists as well as by the breaking of his Body Blood shed or poured out of a Body being not to be represented in a Sacrament but by a Species at least distinct from the Species of that Body nor we therefore in a capacity so to represent or shew it forth by our receiving but by the receit of such a distinct one Add hereunto that as it is agreed among all Men that the Death which we are to represent or shew forth hath the nature of a Sacrifice and the Eucharist it self for that reason represented by the Romanists as such So it is alike certain and agreed that there is nothing more considerable in the Sacrifice of Christ's Death than the shedding of his Blood as to which he himself peculiarly attributes the Remission of Sins Which Sacrifice therefore whosoever will shew forth as to that particular by the receit of the Sacrament of it he must do it by the receit of such a Symbol as may represent the Blood of Christ as separated from his Body which nothing but a Symbol distinct from that of the Body can and therefore neither because there is no other here but that Cup whereof we speak I may not forget to represent as a fourth Pretence because suggested by the Council of Trent (w) Sess 21. cap. 2. that the receit of the Cup is not of the substance of the Sacrament and may therefore by the Church be either granted or deny'd as it shall seem most expedient to
receiving God's Creatures of Bread and Wine according to his Son and our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy Institution may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood In fine it gives us to understand * Art of Rel. 28. which is yet more express that to such as rightly worthily and with a true Faith receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper the Bread which we break is the partaking of the Body of Christ and likewise the Cup of Blessing a partaking of the Blood of Christ For what more could have been said unless it had made use of that particular Expression which yet it doth use where it declares the general nature of a Sacrament what more I say could have been said to shew that this Sacrament is no naked or ineffectual Sign of the Body and Blood of Christ but such a Sign as is also ordained as a Means whereby we receive the same and so sure and certain a one that if we rightly and worthily receive that Sign we do as verily receive the Body and Blood of Christ as we do the Sacrament thereof How well the Scripture agrees with the Doctrine of our Church in this Particular will not be difficult to shew whether we do consider its making use of the most emphatical Phrase which our Church doth concerning this Sacrament or the Effects which it attributeth to it For it is St. Paul (a) 1 Cor. 10.16 as well as our Church that affirms that the Bread which we break is the Communion of the Body of Christ and that the Cup which we bless is the Communion of his Blood Words which considering the place they have in that Chapter from whence they are borrowed cannot admit of a lower sense than that the elements of this Sacrament are at least a Means of that Communion because alledged by him as a proof or at least as an illustration of their really having fellowship with Devils that partook of the Sacrifices that were offer'd to them For if the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament were not a Means as well as a sign of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ Neither could the Gentiles Sacrifices be a Means of their or other Men's Communion with those Devils to whom they were offer'd and therefore neither charge them with any real fellowship with Devils but only with a sign or semblance of it Which how it agrees with St. Paul's charging the partakers of those Sacrifices with having fellowship with Devils as that too upon the account of the Gentiles Sacrificing to Devils and not to God I shall leave all sober Men to judge Such evidence there is from that one place of St. Paul concerning the Lords Supper being a Means as well as a Sign whereby we come to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ And we shall find it no less confirm'd by an effect which the Scripture attributes to one of its Symbols and which is in that place by an usual Synecdoche set to denote the whole Sacrament That I mean where St. Paul affirms (b) 1 Cor. 12.13 that we have been all made to drink into one Spirit For as the foregoing mention of Baptism makes it reasonable to believe that these words ought to be understood of the Cup or Wine of the Lord's Supper So we cannot without great violence to the words understand less by being made to drink into one Spirit than our partaking by Means of that Cup of the Blood of Christ and the Benefits thereof of which the Spirit of God is no doubt one of the principal ones To be made to drink into that Blood or the Spirit of God importing somewhat more even in common understanding than to receive a naked sign of them And though I know that some of the Reformed Churches and particularly those of Zuinglius and Oecolampadius's institution have been charg'd with meaner thoughts concerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Yet whosoever shall take the pains to peruse what our Cosins (c) Hist Transubstant Papal cap. 2. hath collected upon this Argument and particularly what he quotes from Bucer (d) ibid. will find that they always thought or at least now do that Christ's true Body and Blood are truly exhibited given and taken together with the visible signs of Bread and Wine as well as signified by them But because the question is not so much at present concerning this Sacrament's being a Means whereby we receive the Body and Blood of Christ as what kind of Means it is how it conveys to us the Body and Blood of Christ and how we receive them by it Therefore enquire we so far as we may what our Church delivers in these particulars and what evidence there is from the Scripture of our Churches Orthodoxy therein Now though we may not perhaps find in any Monument of our Church a distinct and particular Answer to the questions before propos'd Yet we may find that in the eight and twentieth Article of our Church which may serve for a general Answer to them all and for a particular answer too to the last of them The Doctrine thereof being that the Body of Christ and the same mutatis mutandis must be said of his Blood is given taken and eaten in the Supper after an heavenly and spiritual manner only and again that the mean whereby the Body of Christ is receiv'd and taken in the Supper is Faith For if the Body and Blood of Christ be given taken and eaten or drunken in the Supper after a heavenly and spiritual manner only that Supper must so far forth be a means purely heavenly and Spiritual the conveyance thereof of the same heavenly and spiritual nature and the reception of it also And if again the Mean whereby the Body and Blood of Christ are receiv'd and taken in the Supper is Faith then do we in the opinion of our Church receive them by Faith which will serve for a particular answer to the last of the questions propos'd To all which if we add our Churches teaching us to pray to God even in the prayer of Consecration that we receiving the Creatures of Bread and Wine according to our Saviour Jesus Christ's Holy Institution may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood so we shall be able to make out a more particular answer to the questions propos'd and such as we shall find reason enough to allow For it appears from the premisses and particularly from the prayer of Consecration that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is such a spiritual Mean as depends for the force of it not upon any vertue that is infus'd into it and much less upon any natural union there is between that and the Body and Blood of Christ but upon our receiving it on the one hand according to our Saviours Holy Institution and God's bestowing on the other hand Christ's Body and Blood upon such a reception of it It appears therefore that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper
will be said it may be that literally speaking one thing cannot be another unless it be substantially changed into that which it is said to be and therefore if the Bread be Christ's Body it must be substantially chang'd into it To which I answer that they who say that literally speaking one thing cannot be another unless it be substantially chang'd into that which it is said to be do either mean that it cannot be so standing the ordinary Laws of Nature or that it cannot be so even by the extraordinary Power of God If the former of these be their meaning they say nothing that can be of force to perswade that one thing can be another even by being substantially chang'd into that which it is said to be Because standing the ordinary Laws of Nature at the same time any thing is substantially chang'd into another it is no more that which it sometime was and cannot therefore in propriety of speech be said to be that which it is substantially chang'd into On the other side if they who say that literally speaking one thing cannot be another unless it be substantially chang'd into that which it is said to be mean thereby that it cannot be so even by the extraordinary Power of God They do not only take away from themselves the power of pressing upon our Belief the contradictions of Christ's corporal Presence in the Sacrament upon the score of God's extraordinary Power For it should seem by that that there are things to which even an extraordinary Power cannot reach but leave us at liberty where the like impossibilities occurr to order our Interpretations of Scripture accordingly and consequently if the literal sense of a Text lead to them to abdicate that and impose upon it a figurative one Which if we do we shall find a necessity of putting a figurative sense upon those very words which are the subject of the present Consideration For how is it more impossible for God to make Bread continuing Bread to be Christ's Body than it is to make that Body continuing a Body to be circumscrib'd and not circumscrib'd as it must be if it be whole and entire in this or that particular Sacrament and yet at the same time be in ten thousand others and as many more as they shall be pleas'd to consecrate So little reason is there to believe that if by the word This in This is my Body be meant the Bread of the Sacrament any substantial change of it can be inferred from them And there is as little reason to believe it if by the word This in This is my Body be meant the Thing which I now give you For either our Saviour meant the Bread by it and then the former exceptions will recurr or there are no footsteps in the words of any change whatsoever and much less of that substantial change which is endeavour'd to be inferred from them But beside that the change we speak of hath no ground in the former words though they should be literally understood There is enough to oppose against it from other places of Scripture and particularly from those which represent the Bread of the Eucharist as remaining after Consecration Such as they are that mention it as eaten by the Communicants (i) 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. and as the Communion (k) 1 Cor. 10.16 of that Body which it was intended as a Symbol of For how is that eaten in the Sacrament which hath not now any existence or how the Communion of Christ's Body which hath no being of its own But it may be for all St. Paul's naming it Bread he meant nothing such but either the Body of Christ under the species of Bread or only those species themselves I will not now say though I might that the Scripture will be a very uncertain thing if such forc'd interpretations as these be easily admitted But I say that neither of these interpretations alone will fit the texts we speak of and that there is as little reason to admit them both For thus for instance though we should allow the word Bread to signifie the Body of Christ under the species of Bread where the Scripture makes mention of its being eaten by the Communicants Yet can we not allow it the same signification where it is affirmed to be the Communion of Christ's Body Because that which is the Communion of any thing must be a distinct thing from that which it pretends to be the Communion of On the other side though we should allow the word Bread to signifie only the species thereof where the Scripture makes mention of its being the Communion of Christ's Body Yet can we not with the like reason allow it the same signification where it is said to be eaten by the Communicants Because it is such Bread as makes the unworthy eaters of it to be guilty of Christ's Body (l) 1 Cor. 11.27 which according to the Doctrine of the Romanists nothing but the eating of that Body it self can do If any thing be to be said in this particular it must be that the word Bread is sometime to be taken for the Body of Christ under the species of Bread and sometime also for those species themselves But beside that as Tully sometime spake concerning those that assign'd Atoms a motion of declination this is as it were to allot words their respective Provinces and prescribe them what they shall signifie in this or that particular place I do not see how either of these senses can without great violence to the text be impos'd upon those words of St. Paul The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ Because if as is probable enough the Bread were then broken as it was in our Saviour's Eucharist before the words This is my Body pass'd upon it no other Bread can be meant by it even in the opinions of the Romanists themselves than true and proper Bread and not either the Body of Christ under the species of Bread or the species of Bread separate from the substance of it Agreeable hereto is the testimony of Sense and which is the more considerable here because it hath not only no clear revelation against it but as appears from the premisses hath plain revelation for it For whatever pretence may be made against the testimony of Sense where there is any just surmise of revelations being against it Yet can there not certainly be any where there is not only no such surmise but as plain and express revelation as can be reasonably desir'd To question our Senses in such a case being to question revelation also because concurring with the Testimony thereof Only if any think that revelation not to be clear enough because as hath been sometime suggested St. Paul may as well give the title of Bread to that Body of Christ which was made of it as Moses (m) Exod. 7.12 did that of a Rod to those Serpents which arose from
to his Disciples to prove the Body in which he appeared to them to be a real Body and not a Spirit under the appearances of one For handle me saith he * Luk. 24.39 and see For a Spirit hath not Flesh and Bones as ye see me have For there as well as we here our Saviour appeal'd to the Senses of his Disciples for the reality and substantialness of that Body of his which then presented it self to their Eyes And there too as well as we do here he appeal'd to the Testimony of the same Senses that it was not a thing different from a body even a Spirit Which last particular is the more to be taken notice of as because according to that the Testimony of Sense may be a sufficient Evidence of the not being of a thing that appears not as well as of the being of a thing that doth So because as the Romanists order the matter concerning the glorified Body of Christ in the Sacrament there is no material difference if any at all between that glorified Body of his and what our Saviour in the place before quoted calls a Spirit They representing that Body as present in an invisible and impalpable manner which is the very presence of a Spirit By the same reason therefore that our Saviour might argue from his own falling under their Eye and Touch that that substance wherein he presented himself to them was a Body and not a Spirit By the same reason may we argue that that which our Senses assure us to be Bread is really such and not such a Body as according to the Romanists is an invisible and impalpable one and so far forth of the nature of a Spirit Of the same force as well as nature I judge the Arguments which Reason offers against the substantial Presence of Christ's Body in the Sacrament and particularly that which it offers to us from the impossibility of a Body's being in so many places at once as the Doctrine of Transubstantiation obligeth us to believe concerning the Body of Christ For what other is that Argument which the Angels offer'd to the Women (x) Mat. 28.6 that sought Christ in the Grave after he was risen from it He is not here for he is risen as he said Come see the place where the Lord lay For by the same reason that Christ's Body could not be in the Grave because he was risen and departed from it By the same reason it cannot be in this or that particular place on Earth now it is departed from the whole of it to Heaven and sitteth at the right hand of God there And I must needs say I could not therefore but wonder when I read in the Council of Trent (y) Sess 13. cap. 1. that they were things no way repugnant to each other for our Saviour to sit always at the right hand of the Father in Heaven after a natural manner of existing and yet in many other places be sacramentally present to us by his substance For as they thereby sufficiently intimate that even the glorified Body of our Saviour cannot be in Heaven and here after its natural manner of existing So setting aside the disguise of the word Sacramentally that Council says nothing at all to hinder our belief of its falling into that very absurdity it self For understanding by Sacramentally no other than substantially and which accordingly they just before express by the same term as well as in other places (z) Ib. Can. 1. of that Session they must consequently because it is a corporeal substance whereof they speak be thought to mean corporally also which is certainly its natural manner of existing For if to be substantially present be no other than to be present after the manner of a substance to be substantially present when applied to such or such a sort of substance must be to be present after the manner of such or such a substance and consequently if we speak of a corporeal substance to be coporally present or after the manner of a Body and not after the manner of a Spirit These four Capital Assertions being thus destroy'd and shewn to be both without Reason and against it we shall not need to concern our selves much about the other two as being only the Consectaries thereof and therefore falling together with them For if the Body and Blood of Christ be not substantially in the Eucharist there can be no ground even in the opinion of the Romanists for worshipping Christ with Divine Worship in it And there can be as little Pretence for his being really eaten in it as well as spiritually and sacramentally Only because these two Assertions are as much stood upon as any of the other and the former is also of pernicious consequence I think it not amiss to say somewhat to each of them and first to the worshipping Christ with Divine Worship in it And here in the first place I cannot but observe that however the Tridentine Fathers may in some places seem to confine this Divine Worship to Christ as present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist For so they do both in the Reason they * Sess 13. cap. 5. Nam illum eundem deum praesentem in eo adesse credimus quem pater aeternus in orbem introducens c. give of the Divine Worship of the Host and in the Canon †Can. 6. Si quis dixerit in sancto Eucharistiae Sacramento Christum c. non esse cultu latriae etiam externo adorandum c. they make against those that shall deny it yet do they also extend it to that Sacrament in which they suppose him to be present and as we should therefore think are guilty of gross Idolatry in it though Christ should be allow'd to be worshipp'd with Divine Worship in it For as the title of that Chapter * Cap. 5. De cultu veneratione huic sanctissimo Sacramento exhibenda which professeth to intreat of this Matter is concerning the Worship and Veneration which is to be exhibited to this most holy Sacrament So the Chapter it self begins with these express words (a) Nullus itaque dubitandi locus relinquitur quin omnes Christi fideles pro more in Catholicâ Ecclesiâ semper recepto latriae cultum qui vero Deo debetur huic sanctissimo Sacramento in veneratione exhibeant Neque enim ideo minus est adorandum quòd fuerit à Christo domino ut sumatur institutum There is therefore no place for doubt but that all Christ's faithful ones after the manner always receiv'd in the Catholick Church ought with Veneration to exhibit to this most holy Sacrament that Worship of Latria which is owing to the true God For neither is it therefore the less to be worshipped because it was instituted by Christ our Lord to be receiv'd For can there be any thing more plain especially when the very next words (b) Nam illum eundem Deum praesentem
Reason and Nature and manifestly prescrib'd by the dictates of it not only we but all Christians whatsoever think themselves licensed if not oblig'd to put a figurative sense upon those words which command the pulling out an offending eye or cutting off an offending hand yea though there should not be as perhaps there is not any so express precept of Scripture against the mutilation of our selves But let us examine yet more nearly the purport of the former Argument as it relates to such divine precepts and promises as may seem to have a more particular regard to the life to come and so may be rather reckoned to supernatural truths than moral ones For neither here is it so clear that the literal sense is to prevail unless some text be produced which shall oblige us to the contrary Neither if it were would it be of force to conclude against a figurative interpretation of those words for which this Argument is alledged I instance for the former of these in what was but even now †Part 7. quoted out of St. Augustine concerning our looking upon that as a figurative expression which enjoyns the eating of Christ's Flesh and drinking his Blood in order to eternal life For as that Father thought it enough to prove that expression to be such because it seem'd to command a great wickedness without so much as taking notice of any Scripture that represented it as such so I do not see what text can be produc'd that is so express against the eating of humane Flesh and drinking humane Blood as this is for the eating and drinking them in the present instance In which case that wickedness which St. Augustin affirms the former precept to lead to in the literal sense must be pronounc'd as such by the law of Reason and Nature and no necessity therefore of sticking to the literal sense of any Scripture till we can find as express a text elsewhere to take us off from the embracing of it But let us suppose that the literal sense is to prevail till some text of Scripture can be produc'd which shall oblige us to a contrary one Yet will it not therefore follow but that the words we are now upon may and ought to be figuratively taken because there is enough in those that follow to oblige us to it I alledge for this purpose our Saviour's representing the things he gave as his Body broken and Blood shed which his natural Body and Blood were not at the Institution of this Sacrament nor can now be since his Resurrection from the dead For if the Body and Blood of Christ were not then broken or shed nor can be so since his Resurrection from the dead what our Saviour then gave or we now receive cannot be that Body and Blood and therefore to be understood rather as Signs and efficacious Means of conveying the Merit of that Body and Blood to us than as the letter of the words seems to import that Body and Blood it self The same is yet more evident from our Saviour's requiring his Disciples to do that whole action and particularly to eat and drink the things given in remembrance of him and of his death That which is design'd as a memorial of any thing being in reason to be look'd upon as a thing distinct from that which it was intended as a memorial of and design'd to supply the place of Neither will it avail to say as it is in my opinion idly enough that if the last suggestion were true Christ's Body and Blood must have been absent from that Sacrament which our Saviour celebrated with his Disciples which it is certain from the Story that they were not For as that Sacrament it self was principally design'd for the times succeeding our Saviour's passion and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or remembrance in all probability made use of with a particular relation to them So Christ's Body broken and Blood shed were as much absent from that Table and Sacrament as they are from our Sacramental Tables or any other Those general Arguments of the Lutherans being of no more force let us cast our eyes upon their special ones or at least upon such of them as seem most worthy of our regard Whereof the first that occurs is taken from the nature of a Sacrament which as they say being a thing perfectly new and accordingly unknown to all Men till it come to be reveal'd is in reason to be delivered in proper and literal expressions as concerning which otherwise there can be no certain knowledg Which suppos'd the words that declare this Sacrament must be concluded to be such and as such understood and asserted A Man would wonder to hear Learned Men argue at this rate concerning the Sacraments of our Saviour when it appears by what I have elsewhere (‖) Expl. of the Sacr. in Gen. Part 4. said that there were several such things before and by which St. Paul tells us that the Jews did all eat the same spiritual meat with us and drank the same spiritual drink even Christ Yea though the natural Body and Blood of Christ were not then in being and consequently could not literally be eaten or drunken For how come our Sacraments to be such new and unknown things when there were the like long before Or how under a necessity of being deliver'd in literal and proper expressions when there were not only such like Sacraments to give light to them though figuratively delivered but the Doctrine of those Antient Sacraments deliver'd even by St. Paul in those very figurative expressions which are thought to be such absurdities in ours For however we may be thought literally to eat and drink Christ's Body and Blood yet they to be sure cannot be thought to have done so who liv'd before that Body and Blood of Christ were in being Though granting that our Sacraments were at first as new and unknown as it is pretended that they are Yet will it not therefore follow but that they might be delivered in figurative as well as in literal expressions Because figurative expressions according to themselves may be easily enough understood if there be but a Key to open them Now whether there be not such a Key to open the figurative expressions of the present Sacrament I shall leave to those to judge who shall reflect upon our Saviour's representing the Symbols of this Sacrament as his Body broken and Blood shed and willing us moreover to eat and drink of them in remembrance of him and of his crucifixion Those two things being enough to assure us that the things given by our Saviour were rather Memorials of that Body and Blood of his and conveyers of the Merits of them than either the substance of that Body and Blood or the Means of communicating it to the Mouths and Stomachs of those who were to partake of them But it may be there is more force in what they argue from the nature of a Testament upon
ignorant and are not curious to enquire and much less of Courage enough to determine For as for whatever else they advance upon this Head it is either founded upon this supposed Union or tends only to shew that there is a real and substantial Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament and which because I have already sufficiently consider'd I think it not worth the while to speak again unto And I shall only add that as it doth not appear that our Saviour meant any compound thing by that which he affirm'd to be his Body and much less such a compound thing as answers to that which ariseth from the Union of the two Natures in Christ without which they themselves confess that it could not be affirmed to be Christ's Body So St. Luke and St. Paul give this great presumption against it that when they come to speak of the Cup they do not set the simple word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or This to express the Subject of this great Predication but add 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Cup to it For beside that that makes it yet more probable that they meant no other by it than that Cup which they before affirm our Saviour to have taken and which to be sure did not then contain that compound thing which the Lutherans advance St. Paul where he intreats of the end of Mens drinking of it opposeth this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or This Bread and so offers a yet greater presumption against our understanding it of any other PART IX Of the foundation of that relation which is between the outward and inward parts of the Lord's Supper The Contents The foundation of that relation which is between the outward and inward parts of this Sacrament shewn from some former Discourses to be the Institution of Christ not so much as delivered by him as applied to those Elements that are to put it on by the Minister's executing the Commands of it and by Christ's fulfilling the Promises thereof What is the foundation of this relation on the part of the former the subject of the present Enquiry and his pronouncing the words Hoc est corpus meum and Hic est calix c. shewn not to be it from the insufficiency of those grounds on which it is built What is urg'd in the behalf of those words more particularly considered and evidence made that as there wants not in the Prayers and Praises of the Communion-Office that which may tend to the founding of this Relation so that the words Hoc est corpus meum c. neither now have nor when Christ himself used them had in them the power of producing it What the true foundation of this relation is or what that is which consecrates those Elements which are to put it on endeavour'd to be made out from some former Discourses And those Elements accordingly considered either as being to become a Sign of Christ's Body and Blood or as being to become also a Means of Communicating that Body and Blood to us and a Pledge to assure us thereof The former of these relations brought about by a declaration of those Purposes for which the Elements are intended whether in the words of the Institution or any other The latter by Thanksgiving and Prayer The usefulness of this Resolution to compromise the Quarrels that have arisen in this Argument upon occasion of what the Antients have said on the one hand for attributing the Power of Consecration to the Prayers and Thanksgivings of the Priest and on the other hand to the words of the Institution Those Quarrels being easily to be accommodated by attributing that Power to the Institution rather as applied than as delivered and as applied also by Prayer and Thanksgiving more than by the rehearsal of it IV. HAving thus given an account of the outward Part or Sign of the Lord's Supper of the inward Part or thing signified by it and of the Relation that is between them My proposed Method obligeth me to enquire What is the Foundation of that Relation or that I may speak more agreeably to the Language of the Church What that is which consecrates the Bread and Wine of it and makes them become the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood Now though that hath in a great measure been satisfied already and so may seem less necessary to be consider'd a second time Yet because what I have said upon it lies dispersedly in several Discourses and will therefore require more pains to put it together than will be fit for me to impose upon my Reader And because too many things may and must be added to it to give the World a more distinct knowledge of this Affair I shall though so much the more briefly repeat what hath been elsewhere said and add farther light and strength to it In the general I observe from what I have elsewhere * Expl. of the Sacr. in Gen. Part 2 3. discours'd that the Foundation of that relation which is between the outward and inward part of the present Sacrament is the Institution of Christ not as delivered by him For so it hath no more influence upon the Bread and Wine of the Lord's Supper than upon those of our ordinary Repasts but as applied to those particular Elements that are to put on the relation of a Sacrament I observe farther that the Institution of Christ consisting of Commands and Promises to make it effectual to the producing of this Sacramental relation in the Elements it must be applied to them by a due observation of those Commands and by a like Completion of its Promises The Consequent whereof will be thirdly that it must be applied to them on the one hand by the Stewards of this Mystery as to whom belongs the execution of its Commands and on the other by Christ himself as to whom alone belongs the Completion of the other That though that application which is to be made by Christ is no doubt of the most Efficacy toward the producing of this Sacramental Relation and in strictness of speech the only one which can make those Elements the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood Yet that that application which is to be made by the Stewards of this Mystery is in order of Nature before it neither can Men expect that Christ should convert those Elements into a Sacrament unless what he enjoins concerning them be first observed by the other I observe lastly that when question is made in this particular what is the Foundation of this Sacramental Relation or that I may speak more agreeably to the Language of the Church what that is which consecrates the Sacramental Elements The meaning thereof is what is the Foundation of that relation on the part of the Stewards of this Mystery and what is requir'd of them to dispose Christ to perform his part in this Affair and cause those Elements which in themselves are
or drinking of them Unless they should perhaps urge the Command of Do this as a Command that extends to the Circumstances of the things then done or enjoin'd as well as to the Actions themselves But beside that the words Do this do in their own nature referr rather to the things then done or enjoin'd than to the Circumstances thereof If the words Do this extend to the Circumstances of the things then done or enjoin'd as well as to the things themselves they must alike extend to the time and place wherein this Sacrament was celebrated and to the quality of that Bread wherewith it was Which when we shall see them alike insist upon we shall think of another Answer but till then acquiesce in this If there be any thing to make the posture of our Saviour and his Disciples to be obligatory it must be some cogent Reason in the practice it self to shew the necessity thereof And indeed as the advancers of this Posture are forc'd to come to this at length which shews how weakly our Saviour and his Disciples meer Example is urg'd in this Affair So they think they have reason enough on their side because the posture of sitting is more proper for the Lord's Supper than any other posture is I will not now say though I might that if that posture be only more proper than any other there may be place upon occasion for other postures beside that which shews it even in their own Opinion not to be the only proper or necessary one But I say that it cannot be concluded to be the more proper one in the present instance unless the Supper of the Lord were of the same nature with common ones or at least with that of the Paschal Lamb the Design whereof was to feed the Bellies of its Guests as well as the desires of their Souls Now is there any thing in the Lord's Supper that looks that way Nay doth not the instituting of it after that of the Paschal Lamb proclaim the contrary and direct Men to look after a spiritual Satisfaction rather than a natural one And may Men then prescribe Rules to such a Feast from the modes of those of another nature Or because sitting is most suitable to those conclude it is also such to this Would not one rather think if we speak only of more or less proper that some other posture would be more proper for this Feast even such a one as doth more bespeak the reverence of those that are invited to feast with and upon so great a Person as Christ Especially when one great Reason of its Institution was to express by the receit of it the grateful Remembrance we have of the inestimable Benefits of his Death And I know of nothing that can be replied against this way of Reasoning unless it be the presumption there is that Christ who certainly knew what was most proper in this Affair gave it to his Disciples sitting or lying along For if he thought the ordinary posture of a Feast to be the most proper why should we represent another as such unless we would be wiser than he that instituted it And I no way doubt supposing our Saviour to have given it to his Disciples in the ordinary posture of a Feast that he thought it the most proper at that time and that we must have always look'd upon it as such if he had enjoin'd the use of it for the time to come But doth it therefore follow though there be no such Precept for it that we ought always to look upon it as such Or think because it was then the most proper one that it must ever be so For possibly the making use of that posture then was not so much out of a Belief of its being in it self the most proper one but more proper for that time and place because more agreeable to the Ceremonies of that Solemnity from which this Sacrament was borrowed and where it appears from Paulus Fagius (k) Liturgic Cassand in initio That the Father of the Family and his Guests sat or lay down to Meat before he either bless'd or they receiv'd that Eucharist from him Possibly also though Christ and his Disciples lay along during that whole Action yet they did otherwise express whether by the bowing the Head or lifting up their Eyes the regard they had to that God by Thanksgiving to whom that Solemnity was begun I do not say only because it was intended as a Sacrifice of Praise to God for the blessing of our Redemption but because it was intended also to shew it forth to others and excite them to the same grateful and honourable Remembrance of it and of his Death by whom it was to be accomplished That being not very advantageously to be done where the posture of receiving the Symbols of it is not at least intermix'd with something that hath in it a different Air from that of an ordinary Feast Which suppos'd it will not be difficult to shew in what posture of Body this Sacrament ought to be receiv'd For for ought that I can see by the very nature of the Sacrament it self and the practice of the Antients a posture of Adoration is the most proper for the receit of it and as such to be preferr'd before any other whatsoever That provided the posture made use of be a posture of Adoration it matters not in it self what kind of one is made choice of because there is no Command for any particular one That both standing and kneeling therefore must be look'd upon as proper ones because both of them postures of Adoration and as such accordingly made use of in several Ages of the Church and by several Churches of the same That by how much the more any posture is remov'd from a posture of Adoration so much the more improper is it for the receit of this Sacrament and that sitting at it therefore is of all others the most unsuitable one In fine that if sitting were more proper than indeed it is yet being not under any Divine Command it ought in reason to give place to that posture which hath the general practice of the Church to warrant it and the particular Commands of those whom God himself hath obliged us to obey FINIS