appears that Infants have sanctifying graces to these Baptism doth immediately seal union Some Infants though baptized are not in their infancy in union with Christ but the work of Grace comes afterwards both Baptisms are not always together the Spirit doth not always cleanse in the same moment as the Water doth The virtue of Baptism is not always immediately but it follows us as the waters of the Rock did the Israelites in some the effect is earlier in some later these Infants are sealed from the moment of Faith not of Baptism their Baptism doth point at a future union but it seals not an actual one where it is not but where it is Some Infants though baptized never are in union with Christ some Divines conceive that all baptized Infants are regenerate but common observation opposes this multitudes there are of Infants baptized who at years of understanding shew forth nothing at all of a Divine principle Reason and Will appear but nothing of Grace It may be reasonably expected in regenerate persons that the Seed of God should spring up that the supernatural principles should come forth into act in some measure but when there is no print or footstep of Grace no dye or tincture of it in the life it cannot well be imagined that there is any such thing as regeneration in them To such Infants as these Baptism doth not seal union I conclude with the Learned Bishop Abbot In Thoms Diatr cap. 7. In Christo baptizantur omnes qui baptizati sunt in Christum non baptizantur nisi qui transeunt in Christum corpusque ejus membra fiunt All that are baptized are baptized in Christ but none are baptized into Christ but those who pass into him and are made his body and members The other seal is that of the Lords Supper here Bread and Wine stand before our senses and Christ with his Body and Blood stands before our Faith as if he were crucified among us The Seventh General Council at Constantinople who beat down all other Images saith of this Sacrament That it is Vera Christi Imago the true Crucifix or Image of Christ nay it is more than a meer Image it is a seal to confirm and exhibit Christ with his benefits unto us The cup of blessing which we bless is it not the communion of the blood of Christ The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 Upon these words Theophylact observes That the Apostle did not say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a participation but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a communion that he might declare something more excellent namely a very high union In this Ordinance we eat the flesh and drink the blood of Christ we dwell in him and he in us a very intimate union there is between him and us only it must be remembred that union is not sealed to all but to Believers Faith is requisite that we may partake not meerly of the outward elements â—ut of Christ himself This appears in 1 Cor. 11. in these words Take eat this is my body Drink this is the New Testament in my blood verse 24 25. There is an express command to feed on the elements and an implied one to feed on Christ all Receivers can do the first but only Believers can do the second what we do in this Ordinance we are to do in remembrance of Christ verse 24 25. Not only in an historical remembrance which is common to all Receivers but in a fiducial one which is proper to Believers The unworthy Receiver doth not discern the Lords body verse 29. but Believers have a spiritual eye for it to them Christ is communicated Others have the elements only panem Domini non panem Dominum the bread of the Lord not the Bread the Lord. Were I for Transubstantiation at all I should think it reasonable to be of their mind who as Bellarmine relates held De Euch. lib. 3 c. 11. that only that part of the Bread which the pious receive was turned into the Body of Christ It is to me without doubt that impious men do not receive it or feed upon it Our Saviour saith He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life Joh. 6.54 Hence that of St. Ambrose In Psal 118. Ser. 18. Hic est panis vitae qui ergò vitam manducat mori non potest he is the Bread of Life he therefore who eats Life cannot dye impious men who eat him not dye eternally The great thing in this Sacrament is the eating of Christ eating cannot be of a thing absent it is an unmoveable axiom that which is eaten must be some way present I shall therefore first discourse touching the Presence of Christ in the Sacrament and then speak touching the eating of him The Papists and Lutherans do both assert a corporal presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist but upon different grounds the one upon account of a transubstantiation of elements the other upon account of an ubiquity communicated to the humane nature of Christ The Papists assert such a presence upon account of a Transubstantiation of elements they explain it thus those words This is my body this is my blood are consecratory and operative by virtue of them and in the last instant of pronouncing them the Bread and Wine are turned into the Body and Blood of Christ the substance of the Bread and Wine remains no longer but under the accidents thereof are the very Body and Blood of Christ In answer to this I shall consider the words this is my body this is the subject is the copula my body the predicate touching the predicate it is on all hands granted to be the Body of Christ the only question is in the two other The word this imports clearly the Bread this appears by the precedent words And he took bread and gave thanks and brake it and gave unto them saying this is my body Luke 22.19 What did he say was his body but that which he gave to his Disciples what did he give unto them but what he brake what brake he but what he took And doth not the Text expresly say that he took Bread Of the Bread therefore he said This is my body the order of the words shews it to be bread this will more appear if we compare these words this is my body with those which are a fair commentary on them The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ 1 Cor. 10.16 In the one we have the word this in the other the bread in express terms in the one we have the body of Christ in the other the communion of it In both Bread is the thing spoken of as a thing distinct from the body of which it is the communion If the word this be not bread what can we make of it Is it the accidents of the Bread The Greek word 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports not accidents but a substance accidents are not a body neither are these converted but remain Is it the Body of Christ That is not in the Eucharist till all the words be uttered it is not there at the pronouncing of the first word this the Proposition is not identical the words run not thus my body is my body neither if they did could they any more work a conversion than a thing can be turned into it self Is it an substantia vaga an indefinite substance such as is neither Bread nor the Body of Christ This is such a vagrant that all the world knows not where to find it Christ did not take bless break give an indefinite substance but the Bread It remains therefore that the Bread is the thing pointed at The words in effect are thus the Bread is the Body of Christ and then as Bellarmine himself confesseth De Euch. lib. 1. c. 1. the words must be taken tropically or else they are plainly absurd and impossible The Copula is doth in Propositions import such a conjunction as the subject and predicate coupled together are capable of when it stands between the sign and the thing signified it is not to be taken essentially but significatively the sign is not the very thing but a sign In Scripture we read not of a sign turned into the thing signified but we ordinarily find the name of the thing signified given to the sign Circumcision is the covenant Gen. 17.10 That is a sign of it as the next verse tells us The Lamb is the passover Exod. 12.11 that is a sign of it The Cup that is the Wine in in it is the New Testament 1 Cor. 11.25 that is it is Sacramentally such after the same manner the Bread is the Body of Christ that is it is significatively such this is the plain natural interpretation of the words Vsher An. to a Jes 61. Hence in the ancient Fathers the Bread is called the figure memorial symbol image type sign similitude of Christs Body It is the excellent observation of St. Austin That Sacraments should not be Sacraments unless they did resemble the things signified and for that resemblance they do often bear the names of the things themselves Epist 23. Secundum quendam modum Sacramentum Corporis Christi Corpus Christi est Sacramentum Sanguinis Christi Sanguis Christi est after a certain manner the Sacrament of Christs Body is his Body the Sacrament of his Blood is his Blood The Bread and Wine are figuratively and sacramantally such Two things may be noted touching the Doctrine of Transubstantiation The one is this It is a Doctrine cross to the description of the Eucharist which we have in 1 Cor. 11. The Bread was not blessed that it might be destroyed nor given to be eaten that it might cease to be before it was eaten Never did God put forth his miraculous power to make his command impossible such as the eating of Bread which is not must needs be in those words this is my body in which if in any Transubstantiation may be found there is no imperative word no mention at all of conversion which yet being a very wonderful thing would in all reason if it were true be fully opened it is not only said this is my body but it is added which is broken for you this do in remembrance of me In the Eucharist Christs Body is not considered as a glorious Body but as broken and crucified neither is there only his Body but the memorial of it And how should there be a conversion of the Bread into the Body A conversion of it into the glorious Body doth not sute with the Sacrament a conversion of it into a broken crucified Body doth not sute with a state of glory or if there were a conversion how should there be a memorial the Bread which is not cannot be a memorial of the Body neither can the Body be a memorial of it self after all it is no less than three times called Bread to assure us that it is Bread after consecration as well as before The other is this It is a Doctrine attended with very great absurdities it puts things into such a posture as here follows Here 's a Sacrament without a sign It is essential to a Sacrament that there be an earthly part as well as an heavenly somewhat for the body as well as for the soul but here 's a Sacrament of meer accidents no Bread no Wine to figure out the body and blood of Christ no corporal nourishment to signifie a spiritual one Here 's accidents without a subject the bread vanisheth but the accidents remain and face our senses yet they stand all alone without a substance to inhere in under their roof is no less than the body of Christ yet they lean upon nothing Here 's a thing made which before was made which is all one as if a Father should beget a Son already begotten or an Architect build an house already built the body of Christ which was before the Conversion is produced by turning the bread into it he that was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin is made again by pronouncing a few words to make that which is made is impossible Bellarmine to salve this saith De Euch. lib. 3.18 That it is not conversio productiva sed adductiva which distinction overturns it self if it be only adductive it is no conversion if Christ had only destroyed the substance of the Water and set Wine that was extant before in the room of it there had been no conversion no more is there if the bread cease to be and the body of Christ that was before in being came in the room of it Here is no Transubstantiation but Translocation only Here 's a body in many places the body of Christ is intire in Heaven it is also intire in the Eucharist it is therefore above it self below it self at a distance from it self all which are impossible Here 's a mistake of the Senses the bread appears to be bread it looks touches smells tastes like bread yet it is not so in other things our senses are right but in the Eucharist in which the design is by sense to lead our Faith to spiritual objects they are in a fatal error much less tolerable than if there were a mistake about other objects it being not in a thing meerly natural or speculative but in a sacred or practical sign ordained on purpose to figure out and exhibit Christ unto us Thus much touching the Doctrine of the Papists in this point The Lutherans assert a corporal presence upon account of an Ubiquity in Christs humane nature They explain themselves more fully thus Two things may be noted touching this Presence the Will of Christ and his Power Touching his Will it appears in the words of Institution This is my body that is in with and under this bread is my body this
this never is or can be though the divine nature be where the humane is not yet the union remains it being made cum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non cum loco with the word not with place the Divine nature being immense cannot possibly by distance be separated from any thing if in the least point it were separated it should cease to be immense or else thus The Divine Nature is not shut up in the limits of the flesh but doth transcendently exceed them and thus the Divine Nature is not so properly out of the flesh as beyond it according to its Infinity it is where the humane is not Thus much touching the Doctrine of the Lutherans in this point But if there is not a corporal presence of the body of Christ in the Eucharist is there no presence at all Are the Sacraments 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 naked signs and empty figures of Christ crucified This indeed is charged upon us by the Papists and Lutherans When Calvin saith that the body of Christ is exhibited to us in the Sacrament De Euch. lib. 1. c. 1. Bellarmine cries out that it is but mera ludificatio When Wendilin speaks of the presence of Christs body in the Eucharist Wend. Ex. 103. the Lutherans cry out fucus est dolus est it is a colour a cheat Nevertheless we say that the body and blood of Christ are truly though spiritually present not as contained in the elements but as exhibited to our Faith Thus Reverend Calvin hath it Inst lib. 4. c. 17. s 11. Dico in coenae mysterio per symbola panis vini Christum verè nobis exhiberi in the mystery of the Supper by the Symbols of bread and wine Christ is truly exhibited to us Thus the excellent Vsher Serm before the Commons 1620. Of his precious body and blood we are really made partakers that is in truth and in deed and not in imagination only although in a spiritual and not a corporal manner Thus the Church of England Hom. 1st of the Sacrament In the Supper of the Lord there is no vain ceremony no bare sign no untrue figure of a thing absent but the Table of the Lord the bread and cup of the Lord the memory of Christ the annunciation of his death yea the communion of the body and blood of the Lord in a marvelous incorporation which by the operation of the Holy Ghost the very bond of our conjunction with Christ is through Faith wrought in the Souls of the faithful And again The body of Christ is given Art the 28. taken and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner It 's true the Papists and Lutherans make light of this spiritual presence Gregory de Valentiâ calls it merum somnium Calvinisticum a meer Calvinistical dream The Lutherans say that this is not a true presence of Christs body but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imago a spectrum or image In answer to this I shall offer two or three things The Papists and Lutherans who cast off this spiritual presence as a fancy do yet in explaining a corporal presence make the notion too fine to consist with the nature of a body De Euch. Lib. 1. c. 2. Lib. 3. c. 4. Bellarmine will not have the body of Christ in the Eucharist to be visible sensible tangible it exists after the manner of Spirits nay it is present after the manner of God The Lutherans will not have the body of Christ in the Eucharist to be visible palpable local circumscribed with place it exists in a supernatural manner it is present praesentiâ divinâ by a Divine presence Thus they who slight the spiritual presence do make the corporal one so fine that the body of Christ after they have stript it of its essential properties is more like a Spirit than a Body The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a spiritual one This is clear the presence is such as the faculty is to which the thing is presented the Bread and Wine which are the outward symbols of the Sacrament are presented to our sense the Body and Blood of Christ which are the inward marrow of it are presented to our Faith In the former a corporal presence is necessary in the latter a spiritual one Again The presence is such as the eating is the eating of Christ is spiritual it is as appears in the sixth chapter of St. John from spiritual principles to a spiritual end from the quickening spirit to life eternal the presence therefore must be a spiritual one that it may sute to the eating Further The presence is as the union is the union between Christ and us is spiritual he dwells in us by Faith he lives in us by his Spirit the presence therefore must be a spiritual one that it may agree with the union The Fathers are not for a corporal but a spiritual presence St. Cyprian treating of the Eucharist saith (a) Non tà m corporali quà m spiritali transitione Christo nos uniri de Caenâ That we are united to Christ not by a corporal but spiritual transition St. Ambrose saith (b) In illo Sacramento Christus est quia corpus est Christi non ergò corporalis esca sed spiritalis est De iis qui initiantur cap. 9. In the Sacrament is Christ because it is the Body of Christ it is not therefore corporal food but spiritual St. Athanasius saith of the Body of Christ (c) Corpus meum in cibum dabitur ut spiritualitèr unicûique tribuatur In illud qui dixerit Verbum That it is given for food that it may be spiritually distributed to every one St. Austin saith (d) Habuit Christum Ecclesia secundum praesentiam carnis paucis diebus modò fide tenet Tract in Joh. 50. The Church had Christ according to the presence of flesh a few days now she holds him by faith St. Bernard saith (e) Eadem caro nobis sed spiritualitèr non carnalitèr exhibeatur in fest Mart. That the flesh of Christ is exhibited to us spiritually not carnally Thus the Ancients are not for a corporal presence but a spiritual one This spiritual presence is so great a mystery that reverend Calvin saith Instit lib. 4. c. 17. Nec mens plane cogitando nec linguà explicando par esse potest the mind cannot conceive it the tongue cannot utter it Where mysteries are deep to speak a little is enough I shall therefore only touch on two things The one is this the body of Christ is objectively present to our faith St. Paul tells the Galatians that before their eyes Jesus Christ had been evidently set forth crucified among them his Cross was at Jerusalem his glorious residence in Heaven yet he is before our faith in the Gospel and particularly in the Eucharist in which as in a sacred Crucifix we see him as it were a suffering for us It is here to be
is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the literal sense of it Touching his Power to do it they say there is an hypostatical union of the divine and humane natures in Christ his Hypostasis is communicated to the humane nature therefore so are the divine Properties such as Immensity is he sits in the humane nature at the right hand of God and that right hand is every-where The union of the two natures is inseparable therefore where his Deity is there is his Humanity he is everywhere God incarnate therefore no-where excarnate or out of the flesh In answer unto this I shall offer some things As touching the Will of Christ expressed in those words This is my body The Lutherans seem to stand for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Letter of the Text but their Interpretation is not a litteral one This is not properly in with and under this in propriety This is my body is one thing in with and under This is my body is another neither is their Interpretation true Baptism is a Sacrament of the New Testament as well as the Lords Supper as in the one the blood of Christ is not in with and under the water so in the other the body is not in with and under the bread the reason is alike in both Sacraments If in the Eucharist the body be in with and under the bread then the blood is in with and under the wine consequently the blood is separate from the body There is put upon Christ now in Glory not to say a second passion but as many passions as there are Eucharists It is not easie to imagine how the bread should be broken and the body under it not be so or how the body should be broken on Earth and at the same time glorious in Heaven or how the same body at the same instant can be present in as many distant places as there are Eucharists in the world or if such a Presence might be how the body coúld be finite or indeed a body All which strange Riddles the Lutherans must maintain to make good their opinion As touching the Power of Christ to do it the particulars must be considered First The Hypostasis is communicated to the humane nature therefore so are the divine Properties such as Immensity is Theol. Ancil 51. I answer with the learned Baronius the Hypostasis of the Word is communicated to the humane nature not inhaesivè or denominativè but sustentativè the humane nature of Christ is not a Person it may no more be called a person than Christ may have two persons it doth not subsist but exist in the person of the Word there is no personality in it but it is received and taken into the person of the Word and the person of the Word doth stay and sustain it Hence it is evident that the hypostasis not being communicated to the humane nature inhesively or denominatively the divine Properties are not so communicated to it neither is there any immensity therein It 's true from the hypostatical union of the divine and humane natures in Christ there doth issue a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a communication of Properties the Properies of both natures are truly and really attributed to the Person the Person subsists in both natures both natures are united together in the Person but the Properties of the divine nature are not communicated to the humane for then the humane should be not immense only but infinite and eternal nay God himself because the divine Properties are all one with the divine Essence The second thing is Christ in his humane nature sits at Gods right hand and that right hand is everywhere I answer This argument supposes that the body of Christ is as the right hand of God is which is utterly untrue the right hand of God is incorporeal is the body of Christ so or can it be so and not cease to be a body The right hand of God is infinite is the humane nature of Christ so or can it be so and not become a God In like manner the right hand is everywhere must the humane nature be so too Scripture opposes it in those very Texts which mention Christs Session Christ sits at the right hand of God but where It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in heavenly places Eph. 1.20 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the high places Heb. 1.3 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Heavens Hebr. 8.1 The Session therefore notes out his state of Glory in Heaven not his universal Presence The Apostle tells the Colossians that Christ sits on the right hand of God and from thence presses them to set their affections on things above not on things on the earth Col. 3.1 2. But if the Session note an universal Presence the Apostles exhortation vanishes into nothing Stephen looketh up and saw the heavens opened and Jesus standing at the right hand of God Acts 7.55 56. But if the being at the right hand did point out an universal Presence what needed any looking up or opening of Heaven to see him who in his humane nature is every-where Again If the Ubiquity of Christs humane nature be from his Session then it is not from the hypostatical Union which was long before in the first moment of his Incarnation or if it be from the hypostatical union then it is not from the Session which was after his Passion and Resurrection The next thing is the union of the two natures in Christ is inseparable therefore where his Deity is there is his Humanity I answer There may be an union and yet the united may not co-exist in all places a Star is united to its Orb yet the Orb is where the Star is not The humane nature of Christ is united to the divine yet the divine nature is where the humane is not the reason is evident where the united are equal there may be a full co-existence in place but where they are unequal as the two natures in Christ must needs be there it cannot be so the infinite nature is not put into finite straits the finite one is not stretcht into an infinity the union joyns not destroys the natures the humane nature must have its limits the divine can have none Hence it appears that the divine nature must needs be where the humane is not The last thing is Christ is everywhere God incarnate no-where excarnate or out of the flesh I answer As to that he is every where God incarnate it may be taken two ways either thus God who is in the flesh is every where and this is true but proves not the ubiquity of the flesh or thus the flesh in which God is is every where and this would make for ubiquity but it is untrue As to the other He is no where excarnate or out of the flesh he may be said to be out of the flesh two ways either thus The union of the natures is dissolved the divine nature is separated from the humane and