c. Mark 14 22 c. 1 Cor. 11. 23 c. A. Indeed if the forecited Texts ought to be understood in the literal sense we need not dread this Popish Doctrine But if they ought of necessity to have a mystical and figurative sense and interpretation put upon them we may well enough be afraid of that Doctrine which the Papists themselves in the supposed case confess to be gross damnable Idolatry Q But if we once take this liberty to impâ—se our mystical or figurative Interpretation on the Scripture without express warrant of the Scripture it self we shall have no setled belief but be liable continually to be turned aside by any one that can invent a new mystical meaning of the Scripture there being no certain rule to judge of such meanings as there is of the literal ones Nor is there any error how absurd and impious soever but may on such terms be accorded with the Scripture Why therefore must we of necessity suppose the forecited Texts to be understood in the figurative and not in the literal sense A. 1. Because the letter is contrary and repugnant to our senses which the Scripture it self intimates to be of infallible certainty 2. It is absurd and contradictive of right reason 3. There appears much in the contexts to cross it nothing at all to countenance it 4. Because other places collated expresly thwart and contradict it Q. What sense then may or must be put upon the forecited Texts A. It will be an Introduction and a very good help to us for the right understanding of the said Texts to consider those observations taken from the Jewish phrases and customs used in this matter viz. 1. That the Lamb that was drest in the Paschal Supper and set upon the Table was wont to be called the Body of the Passover or the Body of the Paschal Lamb and probably Christ alludes to this phrase when he saith This is my Body as if he should say the Paschal Lamb and the Body of it i. e. the representation of that on the Table in the Jewish Feast that was the memorial of deliverance out of Egypt and type of your deliverance out of the state of sin and death I will now have abrogated and do now institute Bread and Wine instead of that Paschal Lamb that you may hereafter retain and continue to posterity a Memorial and Symbol of me who am the Lamb of God which taketh away the sin of the world and am now about to be sacrificed for you This for the words My Body and my Blood But then 2. For the whole phrase and form of speech This is my Body this is my Blood It seems to be answerable to and substituted instead of the Paschal form This is the Bread of affliction which our Fathers eat in Egypt or This is the unleavened Bread c. or This is the Passover And therefore the Bread and the Wine in the Eucharist are no more the very Body and Blood of Christ than that Bread which the Children of Israel eat in the Land of Canaan was that Identical that very Bread of affliction which their Fathers eat in the Land of Egypt Q. Is not this Popish Doctrine that the Bread of the Eucharist is transubstantiated into the Body and the Wine into the Blood of Christ a very ancient Doctrine A. It is but four hundred fifty nine years since it was declared by Pope Innocent the third in the Council of Lateran Q Is not this impossible and incomprehensible error of Transubstantiation to be rejected with our utmost Detestation A. Yes Q. Doth not this Doctrine suppose a silly Priest to do that which all the Angels cannot do and that is to make his Maker as the Papists call the Host and the people to devour their God A. Yes Q Can they justifie this by Gods omnipotency that God is able to effect it A. No this is no better argument than the Turks may justifie most of the sopperies of their Alcoran by Q. What reasons and grounds have you for the rejection of this abomination A. There are two grounds especially for the rejection of it 1. The Idolatry and Sacriledge which doth ensue upon it and that is the Adoration and worship of the Host a piece of Bread and the mutilation or maiming of the Sacrament by Bread only and the propitiatory Sacrifice of Christ himself in the Mass who was once only offered up to God upon the Cross all which are the issue of this error 2. The Monsters of contradiction and absurdity to sense and reason which follow thereupon It was begotten by feigned Miracles and fabulous Legends and is the Mother of Blasphemies and inextricable absurdities and hath set Faith it self on the Râ—ck and surpasseth all the Harlotry that the Adulterate Church of Rome that Mother of Fornications ever brought forth Q. If you can but make good this high charge you have drawn up against that most degenerate and corrupted Church of Rome in this one error of Transubstantiation being comprehensive of all errors Papâ—l Rome being nothing else but the worst corruption of the once most famous Church of Rome whose Faith was spoken of throughout the world you may easily perswade all the friends of the Bride the Lambs Wife to aboâ—inate all the other Fornications of that Whorish Church And because the Protestants Arguments against Transubstantiation may convince us how fully they have made good this charge pray produce a few of the many Arguments they have against this Mother Error A. 1. Suppose Christ sitting at the Table with his Disciples and eating thâ—s Bread and drinking this Cup first as the custom at the Paschal Supper was and as the Papists generally and the Fathers hold and we deny not because the Scripture seems plain for it Mat. 26. 29. Hence forth I will not drink of the fruit of the Vine supposing therefore this How is it possible or imaginable that he should eat himself or how can he sit at Table and yet be in the mouths of the Apostles Was he at the same time in the Apostles mouths or stomachs while he sate and rose from Table and discoursed those three Chapters of Iohn 15 16 17. Or while he sweat that bloody sweat in his Agony in the Garden c. A monstrous impossibility 2. It 's impossible to make that which was before existent and in being Can a Father beget a Son that is already begotten Can an Architect build an House that is already built Can the Body of Christ which is before the Conversion of the Bread be made or produced by the turning of Bread into it Can he that was conceived by the Holy Ghost and born of the Virgin Mary be made by pronouncing of four or five words If ever delusions were strong these are For to make that which is made and to unmake that which is made are equally impossible 3. They say that the substance of Bread and Wine is avoided and that
most promptly and apertly manifest the native and genuine sense In which part without boasting it may be said that the Protestants exceed the Papists and carry away the Palm Because their Interpreters are wont 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as Occumenius saith in Eph. 5. to evert the propriety of speech and to turn all things into the uncertain conjectures of Allegories That what Epiphanius in Nicolaitis said of Origen we may say of them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Allegorice explicâ—t quicquid potest He allegorized whatsoever he could Indeed it is said that he interpreted literally Matthew 19. 12. and in the same sense became an Eunuch himself And so the Papists in like manner interpret mostly in the Allegorie excepting that known place This is my Body with a far greater and more dangerous mistake than that of Origen's of that kind of Eunuchs But this Head is too general to be laid down without some necessary cautions Take these few 1. Augustini Regula tenenda est lib. 3. de doctrina Christiana Cap. 5 10 and 11. Cavendum est nè figuratam locutionem ad literam accipiamus vice versa nè locutio propria in figuratum sensum torqueatur Let 's take heed of taking figures literally and of wresting the proper sense into figures 2. It is to be supposed that some places of Scripture are true both in the Type and Antitype both in the literal and mystical sense And Verba sacrae Scripturae sunt praegnantia pariunt gemellos sensum geminum admittunt The words of Sâ—cred Writ are pregnant with matter very fruitful and sometimes bear twins and admit a double sense And 't is an unerring Rule in Divinity Scripture is alwaies to be expounded in the largest sense unless there be in or about the Text some particular restriction to limit it and thus those words Let another take his Office are true both of Doeg and Iudas 3. It is to be observed that in Prophecies some particulars agree to the Type and not to the Truth some to the Truth and not to the Type or to the Type in one sense to the Truth in another Take this Head because somewhat large in its particular branches 1. Some particulars agree to the Type and not to the Truth Psal. 40. 12. 2. Some to the Truth and not to the Type Psal. 16. 10. with Acts 2. 29. and 13. 35 36 37. 3. Or to the Type in one sense and to the Truth in another So in those Psalms wherein David is a Type of Christ As Psal. 2. and 16. and 22. and those in which Solomon as psal 45. and 72. Some things are spoken that must of necessity be understood of them in one Notion of Christ in another Of Pharaoh's Daughter espoused to Solomon and the Church to Christ the one typified by the other Psal. 45. the same may be said Gatak in Isa. 42. But how may we know when we are to interpret in the literal and when in the mystical sense These three Rules will in some measure direct us 1. The first is Augustines golden Rule Si praeceptiva locutio est aut flagitium aut facinus vetans c. If it be a precept forbidding any lewdness or commanding something profitable or beneficial there is no figure in the words Take eat this do in remembrance of me This do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me Indeed This is my Body c. cannot be taken in the literal sense for the reasons to be mentioned afterwards But take eat c. because a preceptive speech and commanding a necessary profitable duty and I am afraid a much neglected duty too we are not to suppose a figure in the words If there be sins of Omission as without controversie there are then those who have not communicated in this Ordinance or not frequently cannot but be found guilty of a dangerous sinful neglect Nothing but ignorance and Phanaticism in the most proper and literal sense can turn this divine precept into an Allegory Some are so fond as to think that this Precept imports no more than feeding upon Christ out of and in contempt of this Sacrament Such self-conceited Gnosticks cannot rationally expect the Churches welcom Eat O Friends drink yea drink abundantly O beloved And if ever such Spiritualists were really fed by Christ they were no doubt better fed than taught But if any man seem to be contentious we have not so learned Christ neither the Churches of God 2. When the Text taken properly affords a fit sense nor doth ought appear in the Context or other places collated that may cross it it is not safe running into metaphorical senses And thus we understand those Buyers and Sellers whom our Saviour cast out of the Tâ—mple Mat. 21. 12. in the Letter and not in the Allegory although some Novellists of our times giving way to their own luxuriant fancies have turned this and all the History of the Gospel into a mysterie or rather a groundless conceit of their own brains 3. Indeed when the words taken in the Letter are absurd and contradictory to sense and reason we must of necessity apply our selves to the figurate sense And surely he is bruitish and hath not the understanding of a man that will Interpret against all sense and reason Reason doth not contradict sense nor Faith reason but only correct them when they exercise themselves in great matters and in things too high for them and beyond their Sphear And 't is fit that sense should give place to reason and reason to Faith as it did in Abraham's case who Rom 4. 18. against Hope or rather beyond Hope as the words may be better rendred i. e. above all causes arguments and appearances of natural Hope such as reason and humane understanding could afford or reach to believed in Hope i. e. in Hope grounded upon the truth and power of God For although there be in Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 some things hard to be understood yet there is nothing in it repugnant to right reason Although in this life and imperfect state we see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 through a glass darkly and do know 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but in part And Quoad nos there may not alwaies be ratio rei â—creditae yet there is alwaies ratio credendi Because infinite wisdom cannot be deceived and infinite goodness will not deceive And according to the forementioned Rules we may be satisfied against the Papists literal interpretation of that known place This is my Body 1. Because the letter is contrary and repugnant to our senses which the Scripture it self intimates to be of infallible certainty 2. It is absurd and contradictive of right reason 3. There appears much in the context to cross it nothing at all to countenance it 4. Because other places collated expresly thwart and contradict it 2. Rule Let the fuller Scripture make out the shorter We must compare the shorter place with the
in the instance of that short prayer of the Converted Thief Luke 23. 42. Lord remember me when thou comest into thy Kingdom and so in that short Prayer of Iacob's The Angel which redeemed me from all evil bless the Lads Gen. 48. 16. this Angel was Christ And in more continued and solemn manner did Abraham pray to that Angel Gen. 18. To him did Iacob pray again and make supplication by the space almost of the whole night and had power over him Gen. 32. from Verse 24. to the end compared with Hos. 12. 3 4. And the Reasons hereof are evident 1. Because Prayer is a divine worship of God as God and therefore due to the Son and so to the Holy Ghost as well as to the Father Rom. 10. 13 14. 2. We are Baptized into the Name of the Son and the Holy Ghost as well as into the Name of the Father and therefore both the Son and the Holy Ghost may be particularly and personally invocated and worshipped as well as the Father 3. We are to believe in the Son and so in the Holy Ghost as well as in the Father and that personally and particularly and therefore so are to pray to either That which the Apostle expoundeth of the Gentiles trusting in Christ Rom. 15. 12. the Prophet expressed of their seeking to him Isa. 11. 10. So that they are inseparably due to one and the same Christ upon one and the same ground see Rom. 10. 13 14. before mentioned It is supposed that he on whom men call he must be believed on or else he cannot be called upon by any and when the Apostle in the 13. Verse mentions the Name of the Lord as that which is called upon he in Verse 14. expounds it to be meant of the Lord himself to call upon the Lords Name is to call upon himself 4. The Lord Jesus promiseth that he will do what we ask Ioh. 16. 23 24. and therefore he may be sought to do the same and indeed he proveth himself to be equal with the Father by this argument because Petitions shall not only be granted in his Name but by him Neither doth he make account that this is any disparagement to the Father but a glorifying of him and therefore when he saith Iob. 17. 1. Father glorifie thy Son he immediately adds that thy Son also may glorifie thee What is said to prove that in our Prayers we may single out the Son of God may serve to prove the same may be done to the Holy Ghost Obj. Against this which hath been said it may be objected we are to ask all we do ask in the Name of Christ and therefore how can we be said to ask him or Pray to him A. 1. The Lord Jesus Christ is asked or prayed unto in that prayer that is put up to the Father in his Name Iob. 16 23. Christ speaking of the time after his Resurrection and Ascension saith In that day ye shall ask me nothing or which is all one Verily ye shall ask the Father nothing in my Name but be will give it you He is glorified as God in that all is done with God in his Name and for his Father For albeit it be sometimes said For Abraham and David's sake God will do this or that yet this is meant in reference to Gods Covenant of Grace with them and so to Christ properly in whom that Covenant is ratified Gal. 3. 17. They called on the Name of the Lord Iesus Christ in every place 1 Cor. 1. 2. Yet surely they brake not that Rule Iob. 16. 23. They called on the Father in Christs Name even in their calling upon God in his Name and Christ as God is also called upon in that his Father as God is called upon 2. In all external worship of God one Person of the Trinity being Named the other are understood and are not to be excluded the Trinity being undivided in worship 3. If Christ be considered as the Son of God in Essence with the Father He is he to whom we come c. Coming in Prayer to the Father If considered as Mediator God incarnate God and Man He is he by whom we come to the Father Heb. 7. 25. and 1 Tim. 2. 5. As the Son of God He may be he must be prayed to which is God and Man in one Person but is not prayed to as Man but as God Q. 2. What are those Petitions which you offer up to God the Father Son and Holy Ghost A. They are Six In the three first we more immediately respect Gods glory in the three last our own good Q. 101. What do we pray for in the first Petition A. In the first Petition which is Hallowed by thy Name we pray that God would enable us and others to glorifie him in all that whereby he maketh himself known and that he would dispose all things to his own glory Explic. Q. Which is the first Petition A. Hallowed be thy Name Q. What is it to Hallow Gods Name A. To glorifie him in all that whereby he makes himself known viz. His Titles Attributes Ordinances Word and Works all which are explained particularly in the third Commandment Q. Are we to pray that God would enable us and others thus to glorifie him A. Yes Q. And that he would dispose all things in his all-wise over-ruling providence to his own glory A. Yes Q. And do we pray in this first Petition that God may be known to be what be is and accordingly esteemed worshipped and praised in word and deed throughout the world A. Yes Q. 10â— What do we pray for in the second Petition A. In the second Petition which is Thy Kingdom come we pray that Satans Kingdom may be destroyed that the Kingdom of Grace may be advanced our selves and others brought into it and kept in it and that the Kingdom of Glory may be hastened Explic. Q Which is the second Petition A. Thy Kingdom come Q. In this Petition whose Kingdom do we pray against A. The Kingdom of Satan Q. How manifold is the Kingdom of Satan A. Twofold 1. That within viz. The rule Satan hath in the hearts of men by Nature 2. That without consisting in an open adâ—ncement of false Doctrine Worship and Prophaneness Q. And are we to pray that the Kingdom of Satan in both these senses may be destroyed A. Yes Q. Whose Kingdom do we pray for A. The Kingdom of God Q. How manifold is the Kingdom of God A. Twofold The Kingdom of Grace and the Kingdom of Glory Q. What are we to pray for in reference to the Kingdome of Grace A. That it may be advanced Q. How is the Kingdom of Grace advanced A. By our selves and others being brought into it and kept in it Q. How manifold is the Kingdom of Grace A. Twofold 1. That within viz. The rule which God hath in the hearts of his people by his Word Grace and
larger i. e. the place that speaks but briefly of a thing with some other that speaks of it more at large common observation tells us that 't is not the right method to read abstracts first because though they be fuller of matter they are fuller likewise of obscurity And sometimes that of the learned Bacon proves true That Epitomes are the corruptions and moths of Histories Epitomes give us the substance of a matter but full Narratives must clear it up to us with all its due circumstances A compendium gives us the Quintessence Vertue Force and Spirit of a thing but the History at large is necessary to the right understanding of it 3. Let the clearer Scripture clear the obscurer We must compare the obscurer with the clearer i. e. if any place occur which is more obscure but elsewhere propounded to us in words that are more clear we must have recourse to it to clucidâ—te the â—ormer We must compare Moses with the Prophets Of all the Prophets Esaias speaks most clearly who is therefore stiled the Evangelical Prophet and seems rather to write the History than the Prophecie of Christ. We must compare the Old Testament with the New In the Nâ—w Testament the Book of the Revelations is deemed by those Interpreters that are wise unto sobriety and not above what is written to stand in most need of interpretation by the other written Revelations The Sacred Scriptures are written very much historically the Doctrines being interspersed with the History Some Eyangelists speak more clearly than others some most clearly of one part of the History of Christ some of another that all of them collated without conspiring together by a contrived design might give us the compleat History of Christ. That you may see the usefulness of this Rule consult Ioh. 16. 16 17 18. with 28 29 verses compared together 4. Let that Scripture determine the point that intends it You must compare Scripture with Scripture and you must compare them aright compare the place that speaks ex casu occasionally of a matter with some other where it is the main design of the place This Rule is to be attended unto in the Exposition of Parables For if we be strict observers of all by-passages in them instead of Milk we shall wring till blood cometh We must remember that Allegories must not be strained too much and that similitudes aâ—swer not in all Lines but in the chiefest Read for this purpose Luke 16. 5. Out of the scope and intention of the writer is often collected the sense of his words And the scope of the writer may be guessed at by the following circumstances viz. Quorsum quibus contra quos quae ex cujus personâ Why to whom against whom or what of whose pâ—rson he writes which last circumstance clears most passages relating to the Eunuchs Qâ—estion 6. Compare Antecedents and consequents in the place whose sense is dubious and it will much conduce to the right understanding of it Where there is not light enough in the Text there may be a light shining round about it in the Context to enlighten it 7. Negatives are more extensive than affirmatives Affirmativa non valent ubique ad semper negativa ubique or thus Affiâ—mativa valent semper negativa ad semper When God saith Pray it is alwaies true while in this probâ—tionstaâ—e that we must pray but it is not true that we must pray alwaies i. â— do nothing but pray But when 't is said Thou shalt not Kill c. This is our duty at all times there is no time wherein 't is lawful to Kill commit Adultery c. 8. Let an exception straiten and narrow a general Rule Exceptio firmat Regulam in non exceptis terminum praescribit in exceptis An exception confirms the Rule in things not excepted and bounds it against the rest 9. Non est distinguendum ubi Lex non distinguiâ— We must not distinguish where the Law doth not warrant it In Christ Iesus neither Circumcision availeth any thing nor uncircumcision but a new Creature If this Rule be attended unto we shall easily understand how nice the distinctions of Conformity and non-conformity are and how unavailable either of them will be in attaining Salvation for us without a reformed life 10. We must carefully distinguish of the Scripture which speaks of the growth of the Church from that which speaks of the infancy of it And thus as for the Discipline of the Church of England our English Reformers considered what it was in the purest times of the first good Christ an Emperours when the Church was in its growth For the times of Persecution in the infancy of the Church before temporal Princes embraced the Christian Faith as they were most excellent times for doctrine and manners so very unproper and unfit for a Pattern or example of outward Government and Policy And doubtless that Government is most excellent both in the community as Christian and in the special notion as reformed that keepeth the middle way between the Pomp of superstitious Tyranny and the meanness of Phanatick Anarchy And this can be nothing else but a wâ—â—l regulated moderate Episcopacy according to this Rule 11. That which the Scripture holds forth at all times must not be prejudiced by what may take in one particular case although Necessitas est jus temporis Necessity be a Law in its time This is a Rule at all times Borrow and pay again This must not be prejudiced by that of the Israelites borrowing of the Egyptians This must not determine Ehud destroyed Eglon therefore thou shalt kill because 't is not safe arguing from particulars to general duties 12. Out of the Tradition and Interpretation of the truly Catholick Church out of the consent of the Fathers and of these either of many or of few of them when eminent for sanctity or learning out of the unanimous conspiration of Doctors and Interpreters the true and literal sense of Holy Writ may be often cleared up unto us By universal Tradition is meant Quod ab omnibus quod ubique quod semper receptum fuit What all the Churches of Christ in all places have ever successively received that is universal Tradition and he is no true Catholick that doth not receive it Where there is a Catholick consent and harmony to bear witness to any Interpretation and that sense is universally and solemnly accepted as it will seem a wilful errour to dâ—pâ—rt from it and to choose solitary and dangerous by-paths where the open road is so free and safe so what can be expected in such singularity but many absurdities and implications and violences offered to the word and truth 13. We must interpret according to the Analogy of Faith We must hold fast the form of sound words Examine the Interpretations of the holy Scriptures by those three Forms the Creed the ten Commandments and the Lords Prayer Mistake not you are not to examine the Scriptures by any