Jesus Christ in the Supper SINCE Jesus Christ speaks of a Testament whose last seal is the Eucharist a Christian ought to learn what this Testament is for to know the importance of the seal which we see put to it and principally it is necessary to have regard to that which Jesus Christ said thereof when he instituted the Supper For he advertiseth us that this Testament is New that is to say succeeds another which is abolished by this latter Moreover that this Testament is with the Blood of the Testator that is to say that he died in this last Will. Now I omit to shew why he would make a second Testament and if there wanted any thing in the first it will suffice to observe thence that the first Testament was of no force in comparison of the second For a Testament hath no vertue during the life of the Testator nor can it send forth its effect unless the death of the Testator intervene Hebrews 9. v. 16 17. So that the Old Testament had no force in its time because that Jesus Christ was not yet dead But the Testament which we have at this day hath been made efficatious by the death of the Testator Some Jew who cannot perswade himself that God would abolish the first Covenant by a second that which nevertheless he ought to have learned of Jeremiah 31. v. 31 c. will tell us that this will make us doubt whether or no there shall be yet a third But this is no reason For the Covenant of God was conceived in form of a Testament or of a donation by reason of Death Now the Testator being once dead there is no place for another Testament The last Will wherein he died remaines irrevocable for ever Finally there is this thing extraordinary that death permitting none to be executor of his own Testament Jesus Christ contrarily is come from death to life for to execute his forasmuch as none was capable of this charge For he is risen again for our justification Rom. 4. v. 25. CHAP. XIIII The sixth Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ MY Blood saith he is shed for the remission of sins We know that his death ought to be bloody according to the Maxime which says that there is no remission of sins made without effusion of blood Hebrewes 9. Now we demand not here why this remission could not be obtained otherwise that is to say why it behoved that the death of our Saviour should not onely be violent but also be marked with blood Nevertheless that which I have to observe thereupon deserves to be considered Death which is the wages of sin began by effusion of blood The first that ever died which was Abel died of a bloody death As then the blood of man hath been the first fruits of death so also was it the conclusion and destruction of it Death began by blood and ended by blood Between this first blood which was shed upon the Earth and the Blood of the Son of God there is a very remarkable opposition touched by the Apostle to the Hebrewes Chapter 12. to wit that the Blood of Sprinkling which is that of Jesus Christ speaks better things then that of Abel For this cried out for the the punishment of sin but the other cries for the remission of sins It is also observable that the same man who died first of all is also the first in the holy History who had sacrificed with blood For he was the first that offered the flesh and fat of living Creatures Genesis 4. 4. So the first who felt death brought forth by sin is also the first who offered the bloody Oblation whereby we should be delivered from sin which is the sting of death Finally The Jews who think it strange that the Blood of a Man is our Expiation have nevertheless an imagination which cannot subsist but upon this principle That there must be an humane Sacrifice to wipe away the sins of man They beleeve that God will give them grace in contemplation of the obedience of Isaac who exposed himself voluntarily to be sacrificed And they have prayers wherein they alledge the merit of this Sacrifice as a foundation of the Redemption which they expect Now as for the offering of this Patriarch if it had been capable to expiate the sins of his Off-spring even of those who live at this day why after this Sacrifice of Isaac should there be yet need of so many expiatory Sacrifices To what purpose hath the Law which is since given imposed upon them Sacrifices for the obtaining of pardon But to speak no more of it Isaac was not sacrificed in effect and his blood was not shed in this Oblation Which shews that it is not expiatory For without an actual effusion of blood no remission of sins at all is made The Law tells them that it is blood which makes expiation for the Soul Lev. 17. CHAP. XV. The seventh Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ THE Institution of this Sacrament is comprised in few words whereof not one is vain For Jesus Christ hath said nothing which contains not some great point Now above all things he shewes what is the vertue and dignity of the Blood which he presents unto us and this in four divers respects to wit 1. That it is his own Blood the Blood of the Son of God 2. That it is the Blood of the New Covenant 3. That this Blood purchases unto us remission of sins 4. That this Blood is shed for many As for this last amongst many other matters therein contained I think that our Lord would yet touch upon a difference also between the Blood of the Old Testament and that of the New In the Old Testament the Blood of the Sacrifice was sometimes employed only for the expiation of one man among the people who had need of a particular sacrifice Now this Sacrifice which was offred but for one man alone was many wayes inferiour to that which was offred for many that is to say for the Multitude or for all the Church Principally in this that the Blood shed in Sacrifice for one man alone never came into the Holy Place But that did which was shed for the multitude Jesus Christ therefore advertiseth us that his Blood was shed for many for the Multitude to the end that we might know that his Blood hath penetrated the Holy Places and hath opened them Hebr. 9. v. 12. And in this also is the New Testament more excellent than the Old For the Blood of the Old Testament did not alwayes enter within the Holy Place Moreover the Blood of the Old Testament which was shed for one man alone was not sufficient even to Expiate legally all the sins of such a man but onely a particular offence for which by name there wholly needed a Sacrifice On the contrary the Blood of the New Testament was not onely shed for many men but hath also Expiated universally all the sins of
Saint Luke relates that Iesus Christ began his last supper That after that he took bread in his hands and blessing the Divine Majestie brake it and then gave it to every one that was present at the banquet telling them that it was the bread which their fathers had eaten in Egypt That for the Close of the Repast he took again the Cup and presenting the Wine said that it was the fruit of the Vine and the blood of the Grape Terms borrowed of the old Testament Gen. 49. 11. and Deut. 32. 14. and to which our Saviour made allusion when giving the Wine he said that it was Blood Whereupon is to be observed in what the last Cup is different from the first Also why Christ blessed not the Wine and Bread both together but the bread by it self a-part and so the Wine That in this Feast there was a Dish composed of Raysins and other Fruits bruised and beaten together season'd with vinegar and made clammie like unto clay in remembrance of the Bricks of Egypt wherein they dipp'd their bread It may be it was the platter wherein Judas his sop was dip'd That the washing of Feet frequent among those of the East was not practis'd at the end of all Feasts but only in that of the Passeover From thence it comes that after Supper Iesus Christ washed the feet of his Disciples That their Custom was to close this Action with the singing of Psalmes the 113 and the 114. which is without doubt that Hymn which Iesus Christ and his Disciples sang before they went forth That speaking of the Passeover they oftentimes give it a name which signifies Annunciation which is the Term which St Paul transfers to the holy Supper when he saith Ye shall Shew the Lords death Without these observations drawn from the Ecclesiastical discipline of the Jews it is impossible to attain to a perfect understanding of the actions of Iesus Christ in the Institution of the Eucharist But the sence of his words touching his Body and his Blood ought to be drawn from a higher Fountain CHAP. VI. Necessary suppositions for the understanding of the words of Jesus Christ in the Supper THat which Iesus Christ said touching the Communion of his Body and of his Blood all that I say depends on certain Maximes which our Lord hath laid for a Basis and Foundation of this Communion Now there are very few people which observe these suppositions without which neverthelesse it is impossible to understand fully the Terms of the Son of God and to know the importance of them The words of the Institution advertise us that this Sacrament is a New Covenant in as much as it is the Seal of it and by consequence that it contains or presupposes articles quite new quite different from those which are contained in the old For we must know that the old Testament speaking of the Blood of the Covenant of the effusion of it for the remission of sins and of the flesh of the expiatory Sacrifice Symboles of the Body and of the Blood of Christ did contain certain Ordinances which prohibited that which Iesus Christ commands us in the Eucharist Let us retain this carefully That which the Son of God commands us to do in the Supper is founded upon Maximes opposit to those of the old Testament And in this opposition consists the Foundation and the Life of the words of Iesus Christ I conclude then that it is impossible without the conferring of these clauses carried through the two Testaments to construe exactly the mysterious words of the Institution Further Let not men think that here I mean to bring in Allegories For the relations and differences between the old and new Testament are not Allegoricall And if any one will call them by that name let him know that without such Allegories he shall never understand perfectly what Iesus Christ had a minde to say For these words the Testament the Blood of the Testament the Eating of the Flesh given for us the effusion of Blood for the remission of sins are terms of the Mosaicall Law It is therefore necessary to learn that which the Law ordained touching the communication of the Flesh and Blood destined to the expiation of sinners and compare this Ordinance with that of Iesus Christ in the Supper This will furnish me with an answer to those who would impose upon me to have here introduced matters estranged from the subject of the Eucharist under colour of being far removed from their own thoughts The considerations which I have to produce are immediately fastened to the words of the holy Supper and shew to what properly Iesus Christ had regard unto in pronouncing them as we shall see hereafter On the contrary many treat of the Eucharist who imbroyle it with an infinite number of other points whilst they omit a good part of the true substance of the Sacramentall words whereof they never expresse the entire sence None here refuseth to hear spoken of demon strative pronounes of a verb substantive of a subject and of an attribute of synecdoches of Metanomyes and other scholastick Terms which serve only for the grammaticall understanding Why then shall the proper names of things which Iesus Christ aimed at in the Eucharist be reputed strangers in this matter The new Testament and the old the blood shed for our sin and the blood of legall expiations the eating of the flesh of Christ and the eating of offerings are terms correlative in the words of the Eucharist and do answer one another with a loud voice The understanding of the one depends on the knowledge of the other CHAP. VII A preparatory question to the following Considerations THere is none but knowes that our Saviour explained himself more formally when he spoke of his blood in presenting the Cup and when he spoke of his body in giving the bread For these last words expound the former and teach us in what quality his body is produced unto us and given in the Eucharist namely in as much as it is the sacrifice of the new Testament offered for the remission of our sins Now these words expresse the subject and the cause of our Communion with him For it is not enough to know that we have the body of Christ to eat and his blood to drink we ought to know the reason and the vertue of it Otherwise we shall never understand the point of the Eucharist This reason is manifest Our Saviour in the 26 chapter of St Matthew speaks thus touching the Cup Drink ye all of it For this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins But there are but few who know the meaning of Iesus Christ and wherein consists the knot and connexion of his purpose That we ought to drink his blood Because it is the blood of the new Testament shed for the remission of our sins And likewise why from the oblation of his body do we conclude
the eating of it What is the consequence of the one to the other Here we have many excellent mysteries contained in these words of Iesus Christ to discover The Second Sect. CHAP. I. The first Consideration on the words of Jesus Christ in the Supper DIvines affirm that Iesus Christ knowing the Law which forbids eating of blood hath expresly mentioned a new Covenant which obligeth us to drink his blood In which he maketh the two Testaments to oppose one the other The one which forbids the eating of blood the other which commands the drinking of blood But I observe one point which is not so common although very notable touching the reason by which Iesus Christ invites us to drink his blood There is a Law in the 17 of Leviticus verse 11 and 12 which we must compare with the Ordinance of Iesus Christ in the 26 of Saint Matthew The Law saith Jesus Christ saith I have given you the blood to offer upon the Altar to make an atonement for your souls for it is the blood which shall make an atonement for the soul It is shed for the remission of sins and therefore I said to the children of Israel none among you shall eat blood Drink ye all of it For this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins This Comparison shewes that Iesus Christ commanding to drink his blood imploys the same reason for which it was forbidden to eat any blood at all The Law saith eat no blood for it is shed for the remission of your sins Jesus Christ saith drink blood for it is shed for the remession of your sins It is then expedient for us to drink his blood for the same reason which seems to forbid it us From whence comes it that the prohibition of the Law and the Commandement of Christ are found to be built on the same foundation Why doth the same cause which obligeth men to abstain from blood oblige us to participate of it How can one and the same reason serve to two contraries that it should be forbidden to eat blood because it is expiatory and commanded to drink the blood becaus it is expiatory Some will tell us that we must distinguish between blood and blood between that of Christ and that of living creatures between the spirituall perception of the one and the corporal eating of the other between the typical expiations and the reall expiations That Moses spake of a blood which was but a Seal and Symbole of expiaation and on the contrary Iesus Christ proposes unto us a blood by which expiation hath been made That the one speaks of an eating which was done by the mouth the other of a reception which is in the soul And that thus they are two different reasons But all this takes not away the difficulty the question remains still For behold what I have to say thereupon The Law forbids to partake of blood because it is the seal of the remission of sins And Jesus Christ commands to partake of the cup because it is the seal of the remission of sins Why do two so contrary consequences result from the same quality The precedent distinction hath no place here Moreover we must know that the Law speaking of the blood of living creatures which it says to be expiatory considers this blood in the union or correspondence it hath with that of Christ which alone is truely expiatory So that forbidding the corporall eating of the signe that hath relation to the blood of Christ the same forbidding touches the spiritual Communion of the blood of Christ represented by the signe Truely the tearms by which they expresse the cause of the Commandment are equivalent to those by which the Law expresseth the reason of the prohibition And 't is not without some great reason that the Son of God commanding to drink his blood would speak as the Law doth when it prohibits the eating of blood We shall therefore see from whence is derived this injunction on us to drink the blood of the new Covenant by the same reason which forbids us to eat that of the old But for as much as this question is linked with many other points we ought to propose them conjoyntly before we dissolve the difficulties Behold then another which ought carefully to be considered as being the center of this matter and the last of the words of Iesus Christ in the Supper CHAP. II. The Second Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ VVE speak of eating the Body which was given for our sins Many Orthodox Divines have these terms in their mouths who know not their importance nor to what Iesus Christ had regard in uttering them It is a RULE in the old Testament That a man cannot eat of that which is offered for him for the remission of his sins It is I say a point of Divine Right and a fundamentall clause of the first Testament That none can eat of that which is offered for the remission of his sins The same flesh cannot be our attonement and our nourishment These are terms which the Law declares incompatible And nevertheless against this Maxime Iesus Christ commands us to eat his Body Sacrificed for our sins his body I say represented by expiatory oblations whose eating was forbidden This here is one of the highest mysteries of Religion and the foundation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist Every one knowes that the old Testament had two sorts of Sacrifices distinguished by the ends to which they were offered The one the Eucharistick the other the Expiatory The one for the Benefits of God the other for the Evil deeds of man Now concerning the Eucharistick Sacrifice all those for whom it was by name offered had a right also to eat of it This meat sanctified by the Altar and distinguished from common nourishments was a most favoury Mess unto them as being sent from Gods Table for an earnest of that Communion which they had with him And we even there meet with an admirable correspondence with the subject of the holy Supper For by the Rule of the Law the flesh of such Sacrifices ought to be eaten either the same day it was sacrificed or the day after But on the third day it was not permitted to eat of it It is an axiome of the old Testament That no Sacrifice should be eaten on the third day Levit. 7. verse 16 17 18. This Law seems to have an eye upon the eating of the flesh of Christ which is meat to us in as much as dead for us For he exhibits unto us his body but in as much as broken So that the object of this eating is Jesus Christ in as much as dead Now for as much as the third day which is that of his Resurrection represents him unto us living the Sacrifices by which he was represented dead might not be eaten the third day But the Sacrifice which was offered for the expiation of sins was
yet of a higher dignity and much more mysterious In this action Jesus Christ was the entire body of the Figure and was there represented more to the life And the flesh of this sacrifice is honoured with a Title which is not given to the other For 't is said that it was most holy An Epithite which according to the Stile of the Law signifies not only a superlative degree in this quality but expresseth abundance of efficacie which it had by divine institution to sanctifie those who eat of it Levit. 6. 27. But that which is carefully to be observed none of those for whose sin it was offered had permission to eat of it so that this meat was ordained to sanctifie sinners and notwithstanding it was forbidden them For either a sacrifice was made for the sins of any one who was not of the order of the Priests And in this case one part of the sacrifice was burnt upon the Altar and the other the Priests did eat For the Law gave them a portion of the offering which they presented for other men Lev. 4. v. 22. and Lev. 6. v. 26. 29. Lev. 7. v. 1. c. But the sinner for whom the sacrifice was made did not taste of it at all Or it was done to expiate the sins of the Priest himself who offered for his own transgressions And then neither he nor any else might eat of the Sacrifice but it was to be wholy consumed with the fire Lev. 4. v. 8 c. Or it was sacrificed for the whole Body of the Church either annually for the universal expiation of sins which was done in the name of the whole Congregation or ordinarily at some notable meetting which required a general sacrifice for the sins of all the people And in such a case somtimes the Priests did eat the sacrifice which was offred in common for the sins of the Nation Lev. 10. v. 17. but none of the Israelites for whom this sacrifice was made had permission to eat thereof Most times ordinarily such offerings passed wholy through the fire to be there consumed so that no body eat of it Lev. 4. v. 13. and Lev. 16. For the better understanding of all these diversities we must remember that there were two sorts of Sacrifices for sin The One whose blood was carried within the Tabernacle The Other whose blood was not admitted the holy place As for the first it was a general Rule that none should eat of it For there was a Law which did expresly forbid the eating of that sacrifice whose blood was carried into the Tabernacle for the expiation of sins Lev. 6. v. 30. This first kinde of sacrifice is mentioned by the Apostle to the Hebrews chap. 13. v. 10. As for the Other whose blood came not into the holy place they burned one part of it and the rest was for the eating of the Priests For this cause the sinners for whom the expiatory sacrifice was offered had never the power to eat any portion thereof Whereupon we are to observe one very considerable distinction in the Old Testament There were other signes representing the Body of Christ of which the eating was permitted to the people of the Jewes They eat Manna which was in Figure the Body of Christ and drank of the Rock which was Christ They eat the Passover which was Christ They eat the Eucharistick sacrifices wherein Jesus Christ was figured But as for the Expiatory sacrifice which also represents Christ it was unlawful for them to eat of it Now we must know that all these Sacrifices and Sacraments did not represent Jesus Christ in the same respect but every one of them had its different and particular signification one representing him in one quality and another in another according to the diversity of his Offices and Benefits As one and the same King may have divers seals all bearing his image but under divers habits and in different postures The ancient people then had power to communicate of all these Sacraments and Sacrifices in some respect as they should represent Christ except onely in that which represented him in as much as an Expiatory Sacrifice which is the quality wherein he is given to us in the Eucharist It is also to be noted that among the Oblations which were represented for sins there was one of Bread and Wine which are the same Elements which we have in the Eucharist Num. 15. v. 24. This Bread and this Wine were also Symboles of the Body and Blood of Christ Now as for the Bread the Law divided it between the Priest and the Altar reserving nothing for the sinners for whom by name it was offered The Wine also was forbid them for it was all poured forth upon the Offering and served for nothing but to sprinckle upon it But at this day the Bread and Wine Symboles of the Body and Blood of Christ are exhibited to them for whom Jesus Christ offered himself in an Expiatory Sacrifice From all these Statutes which prescribe the formes and solemnities of Expiations it appears that the Law permits not men to eat that which is offered for the remission of their sins It is an universal Rule drawn from Mosaical Right Here then is very considerable the Opposition which is seen between the maxime of the Law and that of Jesus Christ The Law saith Eat not that which is offered for the remission of your sins Jesus Christ saith Eat that which is offered for the remission of your sins For our Saviour inviting sinners to the eating of his Body establishes a Principle unheard of before and which is among the Paradoxes That man should eat the Sacrifice offered for his sins We shall see anon the importance of it In the mean while I shall pass to another point which we have already a little obsetved in this here CHAP. III. The third Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ THE Eating of the Expiatory Sacrifice is mentioned as an act of great dignity But it was the Priests Prerogative For the Law gave the Sacrifice to be eaten not to sinners for whom it was offered but to the Priests which had offered it for the sins of other men It was the Priest not the sinner who had charge to eat of it Lev. 6. v. 26. and chap. 7. v. 7. The Priest who offereth the sin Offering shall eat it It belongs to the Priest who shall make propitiation by it And it was not lawful for any of the people although the Sacrifice were offered for them to touch it or come neer it or to be found in the place where it was eaten For the Lawgiver permitted not that it should be eaten any where but in the Tabernacle whether the people entred not The Prophet Ezekiel chap. 46. v. 20. conformable to this Law speaking of the flesh offered for sins forbids the carrying it forth into the utter Court for fear of sanctifying the People Now the priviledge of eating the Offering for sin was given to
desire to it by the expressing of an act which breeds horrour It sufficeth not to say that it is a comparison It will be wondred at why Jesus Christ expresseth himself by so strange a comparison sith that he might explain himself in other termes None ought to take it ill that I handle such a question There is no man having common sense into whose thoughts it doth not presently enter Moreover we must know how to give an answer to Jewes and Atheists who judge that these words of the Son of God are unworthy even of the language of men Every lawful Similitude or Comparison is founded on the analogy or correspondency which is found between two subjects or else in some proportion of the one to the other So to give some examples of it and in like termes David refusing to drink the water that some of his people had brought him in the peril of their lives said that it was as much as if he should drink the blood of these men 2 Sam. 23. v. 17. So saith the Psalmish Psal 14. They eat my people as it were bread Expressing a barbarous act to wit the tyrannical exactions by anothers barbarism which is to eat men But to represent an act of Piety under the name of a prodigious Crime this is some profane ignorant person wil say to represent a fair face under the shape of a Monster It is a weak answer to say that Jesus Christ did speak so occasionally because he gave them to eat For it will alwaies be demanded why he would represent the Communion of his Body by the act of eating giving Bread to this purpose Certainly the wisdom of God which might have used to these ends any other sign then nourishments and other expressions which might seem more convenient hath not used this here without some most important reason whereof I shall speak hereafter CHAP. VII The Conclusion of the Precedent Considerations WEE finde then that the Son of God representing this sacred and most blessed Communion hath noted it with the name of two acts the one whereof is repugto the Ceremonial Law the other to the Law Natural The one that we eat the body Sacrificed for our sins against all the maximes of the Old Testament The other that we eat the Flesh of the Son of man yea that we drink his Blood against all the Laws of Nature and Humanity Now we must re-handle all the points which I have proposed examine them summarily Each of them may be the subject of many large discourses But mine intention is to run them over but so far as they serve to make known the Positions necessary for the understanding of this Sacrament and of the words of the Son of God CHAP. VIII The Clearing of the first Consideration IN The first place we have seen this opposition The Law saith This is the Blood which makes attonement for your Souls wherefore none of you shall tast thereof Jesus Christ saith This is the Blood which makes attonement for your Souls wherefore ye shall all drink of it From one and the same reason proceed two quite contrary conclusions It is then to be known that this point of the Law touching the prohibition of the eating blood depends on the other which runs That none might eat of that which was offered for the remission of their sins For blood was thus offred to such ends yea no remission was made without effusion of blood Now as the Lawgiver had his Reasons for which he forbids all persons to eat that which was offered for their attonement so for the same causes it was in no wise convenient that they should eat blood yea for so much the less as the blood was the most noble part and as it were the soul of such offerings and that in it consisted all the force and vertue of the sacrifice For to deprive sinners of it entirely and to estrange them yet more the prohibition extended it self even unto the blood which was not actually offered nor employed to these holy uses As if all the blood which was in the world had been reserved and set a part until the attonement for sins had been accomplished in Christ For till the Blood of Christ was shed it was not lawful to eat any blood All this then depends on the general rule which forbids men to eat that which was offered for their sins But Jesus Christ advertiseth us that he hath changed this clause and that he hath inserted another in his last Testament whereby sinners are hereafter enjoyned to eat that which was offered for their reconciliation In consequence of which they ought also to eat his Blood as shed for the same purpose Thus as concerning blood the same cause from whence came the prohibition of Moses according to the Maximes of the Law serves for the subject of the Commandment of Christ according to the principles of the New Testament But it will be said was this a point of so great importance to eat or not to eat the flesh of a sacrifice What is the prerogative of the one and the disadvantage of the other Or what is the mystery contained in these words of Jesus Christ Great every way And this is that we ought to consider CHAP. IX The Clearing of the second Consideration THIS difference is touched in part by the Apostle to the Hebrews chap. 13. when he saith That we have an Altar whereof they who serve in the Tabernacle have no power to eat All this is reduced to the following observations That the remission of sins which God granted to the Fathers of the Old Testament was grounded upon the expiation which should one day be made Now this expiation remained in suspence until that Iesus Christ himself accomplished it by the Sacrifice of his Body Therefore is it that the ancient Fathers were so careful to enquire the time when Iesus Christ should be offered It is not necessary to shew at large how much their condition was inferiour to ours God never pardoned them their sins but by declaring to them alwaies that payment must be made and that his justice must be satisfied All the assurances that they received of their pardon presupposed alwaies an expiation which was yet to come This held them in perpetual feare and made them fervently desire that this attonement might be accomplished in their daies that they might dye with this joy that the prize of their redemption was paid 1 Pet. 1. v. 10 11 12. They then aspired to this oblation of the Body of Iesus Christ and desired he would communicate himself unto them in the same flesh wherein he should expiate their offences For they had truly Communion with Iesus Christ but not with Iesus Christ Sacrificed for sins as we have him at this day Now the Law gave then to understand that as long as it had its force they should not obtain this grace for as the way of the holy placed was not yet open as long as
we could object unto them the Souls which they believe to be in Purgatory which according to the saying of the Roman Church enjoy the Communion of Christ and so of his Flesh and Blood A Communion which cannot be otherwise than in spirit For these Souls have neither mouth nor stomack Neither doe I content my self with that which is alleged for proof of the true Communion that sometimes some have fallen into an Extasy in the receiving their host through admiration of pretended wonders which they there presuppose Such Enthusiasmes are neither sufficient nor necessary for the Communion of the Body of Christ For although it be supernaturall yet notwithstanding it is not done by a miraculous transport nor by a motion so vehement as that of the Prophets when they were ravished in Spirit untill they had even lost their sence and remained unmoveable all the functions of the soul except in those of the Intellect being at that time in their intermission Nevertheless we know that a Christian ought to bring the most strong and vehement thoughts that he is able to so high a mystery All other cogitations ought to be suspended all other objects excluded But it comes to pass often that a Christian after having duly prepared himself for the Holy Supper will find himself all on the sudden and unawares surprised with doubts and scruples at the same moment when he receives the Eucharist I omit the inadvertencies the extravagancies and the enormous thoughts which overtake men in this action These phantasms possess the place which ought to be reserved entire for Jesus Christ and although men strive to drive them away it is nevertheless impossible for them This shews that a human spirit is not Master of it self sith that it cannot stop its own thoughts and that they depend not on his will Now although they are not voluntary nevertheless sith that they are ours and that they cross the attention which is due to an action of so great importance they offend the dignity of the body of Christ And in this also is seen the infirmity of man who sins even against the Sacrifice which brings him the remission of his sins But if he condemn these evill cogitations if he strive to scare them as Abraham did the Birds of prey which came to devour his Sacrifice although notwithstanding this they intervene in the instant and at the very act of the eating of the Sacrament Jesus Christ will not refuse to lodge in the soul of this weak Christian For he who is dead for our transgressions hath also expiated those which we commit even in applying this expiation unto our selves CHAP. V. That the act of the Communion consisteth not in mourning for the death of Christ but rather in joy and contentment of Spirit THere is no need of disputing whether the faithfull who lived before the passion of Jesus Christ had reason to be perplexed not knowing whether they ought to wish that the Son might suffer death or rather desire with St. Peter that this might not happen unto him They were invited to the one for the Love of their Salvation and to the other as it seems for the Love of their Saviour Our Lord decided this question both before his death by that sharp censure which he made of it to his Disciples and afterwards when he alleged the Oracles importing that Jesus Christ must suffer to the end he might enter into his glory But it may be demanded whether the Holy Supper be an action of joy or rather of sadness Certainly the death of Jesus Christ wherein we declare the horrible anguishes of his Soul the strokes of that holy Body broken with griefs the effusion of that innocent blood which we there consider as if it were powred forth before our eyes are a subiect of Sadness unto us And that for asmuch more as acknowledging our selves to be the cause of his sufferings we cannot but be touched with regrete that we have procured them Now these resentments seem to exclude from our minds all manner of Joy in the act of the Communion The Law forbade the putting of incense and oyl which is the Symbol of Joy upon the Flesh sacrificed for sins And the Jews at this day observe so precisely that which heretofore was enjoyned them in the feast of expiations viz. to afflict their souls that on all that day they refrain from reading even any passage of Scripture which contains any matter of joy as the comming forth out of Egypt the Conquest of Canaan c. On the contrary their reading is of nothing but sorrowfull things as are the destruction of Jerusalem the cursings of the Law and such like points But omitting that which might be said of this Superstition there is none who knows not that the Eucharist is an acknowledgement of a benefit which is offered unto us in this action which we cannot receive but with joy Also this Sacrament is instituted for our consolation True it is we ought to come unto it with sadness for the Reasons above said That is a necessary fore runner But the proper act wherein lyes the Communion or reception of the Body of Christ consists not in that but in the joy and contentment which our Soul receives in that Jesus Christ hath given himself for it The Superstitious deceive themselves who believe that the Commemoration of his death consists onely in much mourning For in the Eucharist Jesus Christ is not simply propounded unto us as dead but as dead for us To the end that as his death is our life so it should be also our joy CHAP. VI. Of an advantage which we have above those of the Church of Rome in the instruction required for the Communion and of the distinctions which the Orthodox observe in this matter of the Sacrament A Roman Catholick hath need of a great deal more time to learn his Religion than one that is Orthodox hath to understand his Let a man behold a volume wherin is comprised the whole Roman Religion as the Doctors thereof have reduced their Divinity into one Body he shall see that it much surpasseth the ordinary bulk of those wherein ours is contained For I speak not here of writings of Controversy sith that Faith consists not in the Negative of Errors but in the Affirmative of Truths It is to be understood of positive Divinity whose extent if it be compared with that of our adversaries theirs wil be found much more vast and swelling than ours Their Religion is composed of a greater number of articles For they have many which our Theology doth not acknowledge and in those which are common to us both they have heaped up a number of matters which also our Religion nullifies Briefly the Roman Theology contains almost all our Affirmative but over and above that which it professeth to acknowledge with us it hath its own additions From thence it comes that that is more prolix than ours This is seen above all in
Application of Jesus Christ in these two divers regards should still represent it This Application was truly figured also by the Circumcision whereto Baptism succeeded But we have seen that our Sacraments ought not to have any more any thing bloody Moreover as I said Our Saviour seems to have regard to this point that all holy things those which the Law made communicable to every one of the people were applied personally unto him in the one or in the other of these two actions onely viz. either in their Washings or in their Sacred Banquets To these two sorts of actions wherein consists all the participation of holy things answer Baptism and the Eucharist If we contemplate there but a resemblance between the Water the Bread and the Wine of the one part and the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ of the other this consideration is too wandring and generall and doth not observe distinctly enough the intention of our Saviour Wee know that the Communion of Jesus Christ is represented in Scripture under the Similitude of divers â—onjunctions as of the Head with the Members of the Vine with the Branches of the Husband with the Wife of the foundation with the edifice of the Clothing with the Body of Washing and of Nourishment But it is a question to know why among so many similitudes our Saviour would choose these two viz. that of Washing and that of Nourishment rather than any other whereof to make the Sacraments of the New Testament I believe therefore we must seek the reason in the correspondence which they have with these two actions of the Old Testament wherein only lyes the personall application of holy things which the Law distributed to the people To Conclude I shall adde touching the Water of Baptism that which I said touching the Bread and the Wine of the Eucharist Many Divines dispute Philosophically of the proprieties of Water by reason whereof our Saviour would it should serve for Baptism For say they as Water or watery matter is the principall of all naturall production so the Holy Ghost represented by Water is the principall of our regeneration Also as Water doth fructifie the Earth and make it fit to bear fruit so the Holy Spirit bedewing our Souls makes us capable to bring forth the fruit of good works Moreover as Water doth quench the thirst so the Holy Ghost doth quench the thirst of earthly things To which is referd that which our Saviour saith in St. John 7. If any one Thirst Let him come unto mee and drink But certainly they who thrust 〈◊〉 Similitudes into Baptism are extravagant in divers kinds Water is used in Baptism inasmuch as it washeth and cleanseth not as it refresheth nor as it allayes the thirst being drank Otherwise wee ought to consider it as drink and confound the Baptism and the Eucharist Water is not considered in Baptism but as Washing The other proprieties which it may have are our of the Sacramentall analogy If this Element should have yet more qualities proper to represent the Blood of Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit they are not of the Sacrament and it is not for us to place them there FINIS AN Epitome of this Treatise comprised in these Aphorismes following I. MAny are learned in the Controversie of the Eucharist who nevertheless have not Knowledge enough of the grounds and mysteries of this Sacrament II. Many Treatises of Devotion which have the vogue among the people namely touching the holy Supper serve rather to foment ignorance than to augment instruction III. They are ridiculous who endeavouring to specifie all the particular Causes of the Circumstances of the Passion give us Allegories for Reasons and Metaphors for Mysteries IV. This ordinary Phrase the Altar of the Crosse is improper and subject to evill Consequences V. The Historicall representation whereby we call to mind a Man nayled to the Crosse is not this Act whereby Jesus Christ is made present to ours Souls VI. The Reason why Jesus Christ invites us to eat his Flesh and drink his Blood is understood of very few viz. why wee ought to drink his Blood forasmuch as it is the Blood of the New Testament why from the Oblation of his Body we conclude the eating of it VII The Reason consists of Maxims opposite to those of the Old Testament For the Law contained certain Ordinances which prohibited that which Jesus Christ commands us in the Eucharist VIII Jesus Christ invites us to drink his Blood for the same reason which forbids us to eat blood For the Law saith Ye shall eat no blood because it is shed for the remission of sins Jesus Christ saith Drink ye this Blood because it is shed for the remission of sins IX It is a Maxim of the Old Testament that none can eat of that which hath bin offered for him for remission of sins But Jesus Christ commands us to eat his Body given for our sin X. In the Old Testament the Priests were to eat the Sacrifice which they offered for the sins of other men But Jesus Christ hath transferr'd this Rite to sinners themselves XI The Communion to which Jesus Christ invites us is marked with the names of two acts whereof one is repugnant to the Ceremoniall Law viz. to eat that which hath bin sacrifised for our sins the other contrary to the Law of Nature viz. to eat the flesh of man XII God had ordained that we should not eat of any Blood untill the Blood of Christ should be shed XIII The Law forbidding Sinners to eat the Sacrifice of their Expiation shewed that the true Sacrifice was not yet exhibited nor their Expiation accomplished XIV In the Old Testament the Eating of the Expiatory Sacrifice was a Sacerdotall Act required for Expiation But at this day this Eating is an effect of Expiation already made XV. In the Scripture the more a phrase is remote from the ordinary Rules of the Language of men the more mysterious it is XVI The Communion of the Body of Christ is represented by the act of Eating not simply by similitude but to retain the Term of this Testamentary Clause which Jesus Christ hath revoked in this Sacrament which forbad man to eat the Sacrifice of his Expiation And this speech means That the Communion of the Body of Christ is in effect that which the eating of Sacrifices was in Figure XVII In the Life Naturall man and his meat are different Kinds but in the Life Spirituall man and his nourishment ought to be of the same kind XVIII The Old Testament had no force in comparison of the New because the Testator was not yet dead XIX Whereas death permits not any man to be Executor of his own Will Jesus Christ is risen again to execute his XX. He who dyed first of all men dyed of a bloody death The death of Jesus Christ was signed with blood XXI The first Blood which was shed on Earth and the Blood of Jesus Christ are opposite one to the