particular because there is no appearance of the actual existing of those things into which the change was made at the instant the other were chang'd into them As little force shewn to be in the words This is my Body and This is my Blood to prove the actual change of the Sacramental Elements whether we consider the word This in the former words as denoting the Bread and Wine or The thing I now give you That supposed change farther impugned by such Scriptures as represent the Bread of the Eucharist as remaining after Consecration by the concurrent Testimony of Sense and the Doctrine of the Antient Fathers Enquiry next made into that Assertion which imports that the substances of the Sacramental Elements are so chang'd as to retain nothing of what they were before save only the Species thereof Where is shewn that if nothing of their respective Substances remain there must be an annihilation rather than a change and that there is as little ground for the remaining of the Species without them either from the nature of those Species the words of Consecration or the Testimony of Sense That the true Body and true Blood of Christ together with his Soul and Divinity are under the Species of the Sacramental Elements a third Capital Assertion in this Matter but hath as little ground in the words of Consecration as either of the former First because those words relate not to Christ's glorified Body and Blood which are the things affirmed to be contain'd under the Species of the Sacramental Elements but to Christ's Body as broken and to his Blood as shed at his Crucifixion Secondly because however they may import the being of that Body and Blood in the Eucharist yet they specifie nothing as to the modus of it and much less intimate any thing concerning their being under the Species thereof That that Body and Blood which is the fourth Capital Assertion in this Matter are truly really and substantially under the Sacramental Species shewn to be as groundless and Evidence made of the contrary by such Arguments from Sense and Reason as are moreover confirmed to us by the Authority of Revelation Some brief Reflections in the close upon the Worship of Christ in the Sacrament and more large ones upon what the Romanists advance concerning the real eating of him in it Where is shewn that that which they call a real eating is a very improper one that it is however of no necessity or use toward our spiritual nourishment by him and not only no way confirm'd by the discourse of our Saviour in the sixth of St. John's Gospel but abundantly confuted by it pag. 227. The Contents of the Eighth Part. Of Consubstantiation AN account of that Doctrine which is by us called Consubstantiation out of the Augustan Confession and Gerhard And as it is founded by him and other the Lutheran Doctors in the letter of the words This is my Body and This is my Blood so Enquiry thereupon made first whether those words ought to be taken in the literal sense Secondly whether if so taken Consubstantiation can be inferred from them That the former words ought to be taken in the literal sense is endeavour'd by the Lutherans to be prov'd by general and special Arguments and those Arguments therefore propos'd and answer'd What is alledg'd in the general concerning the literal sense of Scripture being for the most part to be preferr'd before the figurative willingly allow'd But that no exception ought to be made unless where the Scripture it self obligeth us to depart from the literal sense shewn to be neither true in it self nor pertinent to the present Texts because there is enough in the words that follow them to oblige us to preferr the figurative sense before it The Lutherans special Arguments next brought under Consideration and First that which is drawn from the supposed newness and strangeness of the Christian Sacraments at the first and which consequently requir'd that they should be deliver'd in proper and literal Expressions as without which otherwise there could have been no certain knowledge of them Where is shewn that the Christian Sacraments were neither such new and strange things at the first Institution of them as is pretended There having been the like under the Old Testament nor under any necessity if they had been such of being delivered in literal and proper Expressions because figurative Expressions with a Key to open them might have sufficiently declar'd the nature of them What is urg'd in the second place from the nature of a Testament under the form of which this Sacrament is thought from Luke 22.20 to have been instituted shewn to be of as little force Partly because it is justly questionable whether what we there render Testament ought not rather to be render'd a Covenant and partly because even Civil Testaments are shewn to admit of figurative Expressions A short Answer made to what is alledg'd in the third and fourth place from the Majesty of him that instituted this Sacrament and from the supposed Conformity there is between the several Evangelists and St. Paul in their accounts of the words in question And a more full one to what is offer'd in the fifth place to shew the absurdity of a figurative Sense from the no place there is for it either in the Subject Predicate or Copula The Copula or the word Is thereupon made choice of to place the Figure in and answer made to what is objected against it from the Rules of Logick and from the Scripture That the literal Sense is not as is pretended in the sixth Argument the only one that can quiet the Mind or secure the Conscience briefly shewn And Enquiry next made whether though the literal Sense of the words should be allow'd consubstantiation could be inferred from them Which that it cannot is made appear from there being nothing in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or This to denote that complexum quid which Consubstantiation advanceth p. 249. The Contents of the Ninth Part. Of the foundation of that relation which is between the outward and inward parts of the Lord's Supper THE foundation of that relation which is between the outward and inward parts of this Sacrament shewn from some former Discourses to be the Institution of Christ not so much as delivered by him as applied to those Elements that are to put it on by the Minister's executing the Commands of it and Christ's fulfilling the Promises thereof What is the foundation of this relation on the part of the former the subject of the present Enquiry and his pronouncing the words Hoc est corpus meum and Hic est calix c. shewn not to be it from the insufficiency of those grounds on which it is built What is urg'd in the behalf of those words more particularly considered and evidence made that as there wants not in the Prayers and Praises of the Communion-Office that which may tend to the founding of this
necessity nor ever was of any Man 's receiving the Cup whether he be Priest or private Person Consecrater of the Bread and it or only a simple Communicant Then every one too that heretofore did or now doth receive in both kinds doth in one and the same Eucharist receive the Blood twice once in the Species of Bread and again in the Species of Wine In fine by the same Rule and their affirming whole Christ to be contained under either Species Hoc est corpus meum may be as proper to make a Transubstantiation of the Cup as it is a Transubstantiation of the Bread The two former whereof render our Saviour's injunction concerning the receit of the Cup perfectly unnecessary The last gives us occasion to wonder why our Saviour who to be sure affected no change of Phrase did not make use of the same Hoc est corpus meum to make an alteration of the Cup especially when if he had it might have so aptly hinted to us the sufficiency of one only Species to possess us of his Body and Blood These I take to be the natural Consequences of making Hoc est corpus meum to signifie at all times This is my Body and Blood and by vertue thereof to possess the Receivers of that over which they are pronounc'd of whole and entire Christ And if on the other side they with whom we have to do make those words to signifie so only where the Sacrament is administred but in one kind and only to those to whom it is so administred they must consequently make the very same words Hoc est corpus meum to signifie one thing to the Lay-man who receives but in one kind and another to the Priest that consecrates and receives in both Which beside that it will make the signification of those words to be arbitrary and according as the Priest shall intend them will make them vary from the signification they had in the Institution of Christ which is and ought to be the Pattern of all Our Saviour as he both instituted and distributed the Sacrament in both kinds so to be sure making the words Hoc est corpus meum to signifie only This is my Body apart from my Blood as which latter he both appointed a distinct Element for and as they love to speak converted that distinct Element into by words equally fitted for such a Conversion I think I shall not need to say much to shew the Bread of the Sacrament not to be converted into Christ's Body and Blood by the force of the words This is my Body and This is my Blood as if the latter extended to the Species of the former as well as to its own proper Sacrament even the Liquor of the Cup Both because those words are not appli'd even by themselves to the Bread but to the Cup and cannot therefore in reason be thought to have any operation upon the former And because our Saviour in that Eucharist which he consecrated for his Disciples gave them the Bread of it to eat before he proceeded to the Consecration of the Cup and before therefore it could be suppos'd to receive any influence from those words This is my Blood as which were not till some time after pronounced by him One only Device remains to bring Christ's Blood as well as Body under the Species of Bread called by the Schoolmen Concomitancy but ought rather by the Romanists explication of it and indeed by the words natural connexion before us'd by the Council of Trent to be termed a real Vnion By vertue of which if Christ's Blood and Body are brought together under the Species of Bread Christ's Body in the Sacrament even that which the words Hoc est corpus meum produc'd is no more that Body which was broken upon the Cross at least consider'd as such for that to be sure was separated from his Blood but his Body entire and perfect And then farewell not only to the natural signification of Hoc est corpus meum and quod pro vobis frangitur but to the Sacrifice of Christ's Body in the Eucharist which yet they have hitherto so contended for as not to think it to be such only by a Figure or Memorial of it Such reason is there to believe how confidently soever the contrary is affirm'd that Christ's Body and Blood are not contain'd under the single Species of Bread And yet if that could be prov'd it would not therefore follow that it were an indifferent thing whether we receiv'd the Cup or no. For the design of the several Species and our receit of them (u) 1 Cor. 11.26 being to shew forth to others the Lord's Death as well as to possess our selves of his Body and Blood If that be not to be compass'd without the receit of the Cup it will make the use of it to be so far necessary what ever we may gain by the Bread alone He satisfying not his Duty who complies with one end of any thing to the neglect of another as that too which tends apparently to the Honour of the Institutor as to be sure the Commemoration of our Saviour's Death and Passion doth Now that the Death of our Saviour cannot be otherwise shewn forth or at least not as he himself represented it without the receit of the Cup as well as Bread may appear from his own representing his Death as a thing effected by the shedding or pouring out of his Blood For so it is in the several Evangelists as well as by the breaking of his Body Blood shed or poured out of a Body being not to be represented in a Sacrament but by a Species at least distinct from the Species of that Body nor we therefore in a capacity so to represent or shew it forth by our receiving but by the receit of such a distinct one Add hereunto that as it is agreed among all Men that the Death which we are to represent or shew forth hath the nature of a Sacrifice and the Eucharist it self for that reason represented by the Romanists as such So it is alike certain and agreed that there is nothing more considerable in the Sacrifice of Christ's Death than the shedding of his Blood as to which he himself peculiarly attributes the Remission of Sins Which Sacrifice therefore whosoever will shew forth as to that particular by the receit of the Sacrament of it he must do it by the receit of such a Symbol as may represent the Blood of Christ as separated from his Body which nothing but a Symbol distinct from that of the Body can and therefore neither because there is no other here but that Cup whereof we speak I may not forget to represent as a fourth Pretence because suggested by the Council of Trent (w) Sess 21. cap. 2. that the receit of the Cup is not of the substance of the Sacrament and may therefore by the Church be either granted or deny'd as it shall seem most expedient to
that strengthening and refreshing of the Soul which it is said to receive by the Body and Blood of Christ Enquire we in the next place what Evidence there is of their being intended for it Which will soon appear from their being intended by Christ as the Meat and Drink of the Soul and particularly as such Meat and Drink as Bread and Wine are to the Body For Meat and Drink being intended for the strengthening and refreshing of Men's Bodies and particularly such Meat and Drink as are the outward part of the present Sacrament If the Body and Blood of Christ were intended as such to the Soul they must be consequently intended for its strengthening and refreshing Now that the Body and Blood of Christ were intended as Meat and Drink to the Soul and particularly as such Meat and Drink as Bread and Wine are to the Body is evident for the former of these from several passages of the sixth of St. John's Gospel * See Part 3. where it is so declar'd in express terms and for the latter from our Saviour's making use of Bread and Wine to represent them and which is more calling upon us to eat and drink of them in remembrance of Christ's giving that Body and Blood of his for us This as it farther shews them to have been intended as our Spiritual Meat and Drink so to have been intended too in a Spiritual manner to be eaten and drunken by us and so made yet more subservient to our strengthening and refreshment 3. Now this the Body and Blood of Christ effect first and chiefly as the meritorious cause of that Grace by which that strengthening and refreshing is immediately produc'd Or secondly as stirring up the Minds of the Faithful to contemplate the meritoriousness thereof and in the strength of that to grapple with all Difficulties and bear up under all Troubles and Disquiets For beside that the Body and Blood of Christ as was before observ'd (m) Part 5. are to be consider'd in this Sacrament under the Notion of a propitiatory Sacrifice and which as such doth rather dispose God to grant us that strength and refreshment which we desire than actually collate them on us There is nothing more evident from the Scriptures than that it is the Spirit of God (n) Eph. 3.15 and his Graces by which we must be immediately strengthened with might in the inner Man and that it is by him (o) Acts 9.31 that we receive comfort and consolation For which cause our Saviour gives him the title of the Comforter and professeth to send him to supply his own place in that as well as in other particulars From whence as it will follow that it is to the Spirit of God and his Graces that we are immediately to ascribe that strength and refreshment which we expect So that we ought therefore to look upon Christ's Body and Blood as conferring to it not so much by any immediate influence thereof upon the Soul as by their disposing God to grant that Spirit by which both the one and the other are produc'd Upon which account we find St. Paul where he attributes the several Graces of a Christian to the immediate Influences of that Spirit affirming those that partake of this Cup to be made to drink into the same Spirit as that which is the immediate Author of them This I take to be in an especial manner that strengthning and refreshing which our Catechism and the Scripture prompts us to ascribe to the Body and Blood of Christ Neither can I think of any other than what the contemplation of the meritoriousness thereof may infuse into the Soul of him who seriously reflects upon it That I mean whereby the Soul becomes so confident of the Divine Assistance and Favour as neither to doubt of his enabling it to do what he requires nor despair of his delivering it from all its fears and troubles I will close this Discourse when I have added that as the Sign of this Sacrament hath the relation of a Means whereby God conveys and we receive the Body and Blood of Christ So it hath also the Relation of a Pledge to assure us thereof or as our Church elsewhere expresseth it (p) Art 19. a certain sure Witness of it A Relation which is not more generally acknowledg'd than easie to make out from the former one For what is ordained by Christ as a Mean for the conveying of his Body and Blood being as sure to have its effect if it be received as it ought to be He who so receives what Christ hath thus ordain'd will need no other Proof than that of his receiving that Body and Blood of Christ which it was so ordained to convey PART VII Of Transubstantiation The Contents The Doctrine of Transubstantiation briefly deduc'd from the Council of Trent and digested into four capital Assertions Whereof the first is that the whole substance of the Bread is chang'd into the substance of Christ's Body and the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of his Blood The grounds of this Assertion examin'd both as to the possibility and actual being of such a change What is alledg'd for the former of these from the substantial changes mention'd in the Scripture of no force in this particular because there is no appearance of the actual existing of those things into which the change was made at the instant the other were chang'd into them As little force shewn to be in the words This is my Body and This is my Blood to prove the actual change of the Sacramental Elements whether we consider the word This in the former words as denoting the Bread and Wine or The thing I now give you That supposed change farther impugned by such Scriptures as represent the Bread of the Eucharist as remaining after Consecration by the concurrent Testimony of Sense and the Doctrine of the Antient Fathers Enquiry next made into that Assertion which imports that the substances of the Sacramental Elements are so chang'd as to retain nothing of what they were before save only the Species thereof Where is shewn that if nothing of their respective Substances remain there must be an annihilation rather than a change and that there is as little ground for the remaining of the Species without them either from the nature of those Species the words of Consecration or the Testimony of Sense That the true Body and true Blood of Christ together with his Soul and Divinity are under the Species of the Sacramental Elements a third Capital Assertion in this Matter but hath as little ground in the words of Consecration as either of the former First because those words relate not to Christ's glorified Body and Blood which are the things affirmed to be contain'd under the Species of the Sacramental Elements but to Christ's Body as broken and to his Blood as shed at his Crucifixion Secondly because however they may import the being of that Body and Blood
that Assertion of theirs in This is my Body and This is my Blood For though those words may assure me that the Body and Blood of Christ are there where I discern the species of the Sacramental Elements to be and consequently that naturally speaking the substances of those Elements cannot Yet as they do not so much as hint that the substances of those Elements neither are nor can be there by the extraordinary power of God so they say nothing to let us understand by what means they are convey'd away if they do not remain there But because this Assertion imports as well the remaining of the species or accidents of the Sacramental Elements as the not remaining of the substances thereof Therefore enquire we so far as we may what the grounds of that part of the Assertion are and if there be any need of it after such an enquiry oppose proper Arguments to it For the truth is that as those accidents are forc'd to subsist without a subject so they seem to have no other support save what the necessity of a bad cause and a confident asseveration can give them For is there any thing in the nature of an accident to persuade us that the thing is so much as possible and that though the substance of the Sacramental Elements remains not yet the species or accidents thereof may On the contrary they who believe any such thing as an accident make the inhering thereof in a subject to be of the very essence of it and that at the same time it ceaseth to inhere as it must do when the subject thereof is remov'd it also ceaseth to be Is it then that those separate species or accidents have any thing in the words This is my Body and This is my Blood to afford them any support But alas as the words my Body and my Blood are so far from giving any countenance to them that they rather bid defiance to them because professing to contain nothing less in them than the August Body and Blood of Christ So the word This is as much afraid of owning them for fear it should injure the substances thereof and instead of betokening the conversion of those into the substances of Christ's Body and Blood proclaim the conversion of the species or accidents thereof into them and so bid a far greater defiance to our already too much offended Senses Shall we then which is all we have to trust to at the last appeal to the testimony of our Senses for them But beside that no wise Transubstantiator ought to give any belief to his Senses as which will tell him farther if he listen to them that there is the substance of Bread and Wine under them Those Senses of ours do never represent those species as things distinct from their proper substances and much less as separate from them but as inherent in them and proper characters of them and so leading us more to the contemplation of their respective substances than to that of their own particular natures So little reason is there to believe the being of such Species or Accidents after their proper Substances are remov'd And there is this substantial Reason against it that the admission of such Species or Accidents in the Sacrament would render the Testimony of our Senses uncertain in other things Because whatever Pretence there may be from Revelation for the being of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament yet there is no Pretence at all from that for the being of any such separate Species or Accidents and we therefore as much at liberty to believe them elsewhere as there and so boggle at any farther notice that may be suppos'd to come to us by the Species of any thing whatsoever 3. The third Assertion on which the Doctrine of Transubstantiation is founded is that the true Body and true Blood of Christ together with his Soul and Divinity are under the Species of the Sacramental Elements An Assertion which the Romanists seem to be so confident of from the words This is my Body and This is my Blood that they make no end of inculcating it and think all Men either blind or obstinate who will not as readily assent to it But with how little reason and how much against it also will soon appear if we compare them together whether as to that Body and Blood of Christ which they both profess to intreat of or as to the being of them in the Sacrament There being a manifest difference in each of these between the Assertion I am now upon and those words from which they profess to deduce it For first whereas the Body and Blood of Christ in the words of our Saviour are his Body and Blood as broken and shed at his Crucifixion and not as they were at the time of our Saviour's uttering those words or since his resurrection from the Dead The Body and Blood of Christ affirmed to be contain'd under the Species of Bread and Wine are the Body and Blood of Christ in that glorious estate wherein they now are now no more to fall under those Accidents which they sometime underwent For it is no way repugnant saith the Council of Trent (s) Sess 13. cap. 1. that our Saviour himself should alway sit at the right hand of the Father in Heaven according to a natural manner of existing and yet nevertheless be Sacramentally present to us by his substance in other places after that way of existing which though we can scarce express in words yet we believe to be possible to God And again (t) Ib. cap. 3. which shews it yet more to speak of Christ's glorified Body the Faith of the Church hath always been that presently after the Consecration the true Body and true Blood of Christ together with his Soul and Divinity are under the Species of Bread and Wine But the Body indeed under the Species of Bread and the Blood under the Species of Wine by vertue of the words but the Body it self under the Species of Wine and the Blood under the Species of Bread and the Soul under both by vertue of that natural Connexion and Concomitancy by which the parts of Christ our Lord who is now risen from the Dead now no more to die are coupled among themselves Than which what can be more plain that it is the Body and Blood of Christ as they now are which they affirm to be contained under the Species of those Elements and not as broken and shed for us It is true indeed that when the same Tridentine Fathers come to entreat of the Sacrifice of the Mass and the Propriety of that Sacrifice they may seem to sing another Song because as was before * Part 5. observed representing it as the very same Sacrifice with that which he offer'd up upon the Cross But as they sufficiently unsay it again when they represent it as an unbloody Sacrifice and as an Oblation that is made of Christ's Body and Blood
no way fitted for it to become to all intents and purposes the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood The Romanists as is very well known make the words Hoc est corpus meum c. to be the words of Consecration and that it is to them and them only that this great relation is owing and which is more a substantial change of the Elements into the very Body and Blood of Christ For though the Council of Trent is no way clear in this particular as may appear to any that shall take the pains to consult it †Sess 13. cap. 1. Yet as it is the general opinion of their Writers and the only one that can safely be maintain'd among them so it is that which the Roman Missal doth sufficiently confirm Because entitling those words and those alone the words of Consecration A man would willingly see something like a Reason for this Assertion that so he might return something like an Answer to it But if you look into the Master of the Sentences (a) Lib. 4. Dist 8. or his great Commentator Aquinas (b) Summ. tert parte qu. 78. Art 1. you shall find no other than this that in the other parts of this Service there is only Praise given to God or Prayer made unto him But when this Sacrament comes to be made the Priest doth not then use his own words but the words of Christ himself therefore the word of Christ even Hoc est corpus meum c. makes this Sacrament I say nothing at this time that this Argument such as it is is drawn from the Service of the Church and not as one would have thought and had been but reasonable from the words of the Institution or from some other words of our blessed Saviour and his Apostles But I say which will be enough that let the Service of the Church be as legitimate as may be yet there is nothing in it to perswade what is endeavour'd to be inferred from it For what though in the other parts of the Service there is nothing but Praise given to God including therein as I suppose the giving of Thanks and Prayer to God Yet how will it thence follow that there is nothing in it tending to the Consecration of the Elements For it appears by St. Luke and St. Paul's making use of the word gave Thanks for what the other Evangelists express by blessed that our Saviour blessed by giving Thanks And why might not he then or we now bless the Sacramental Elements in like manner and by that blessing change them into a Sacrament which is as much as to say Consecrate And it appears also that as little as the Romanists seem to esteem of Prayer in this particular Yet as there is even in their own Missal a Prayer to God that he would vouchsafe to make their Oblation a blessed One c. that it might become to them the Body and Blood of his Son So Prayer it self so far as Man is capable of blessing is no contemptible one yea such a Blessing as God himself thought no improper one for a Priest or rather (c) Num. 6.23 c. for the High Priest himself But it may be there is more in what they alledge that when this Sacrament comes to be made For still they will take that for granted the Priest doth not then use his own words but the words of Christ himself The Priest as Aquinas afterwards (d) Vbi supra tells us speaking as it were in the Person of Christ to let us understand that in the perfection of this Sacrament he doth nothing but pronounce the words of Christ But first if the Priest's using not his own words but the words of Christ be that which makes what he saith to have the force of Consecration How comes it to pass that his using the words Accipite manducate which are as certainly the words of our Saviour comes to have no part in it Especially when Hoc est enim corpus meum for so they express it in their Missal do so manifestly referr to the former and are as manifestly a Reason of what is exhorted to in them I say secondly that though it be true that the Priest doth not then use his own words but those of Christ himself Yet he doth not use them as one speaking in the Person of Christ as Aquinas would insinuate but as a bare reciter of them and a reciter of them too as spoken the Night before he suffer'd and with respect to that particular Eucharist which he gave to his Disciples Which how it should convert the Elements then before him into the Body and Blood of Christ is a thing as hard to be understood as that conversion it self Words being in reason to be construed with relation to that and that alone to which they are applied by the Author of them Neither will it avail to say that though the words considered in themselves respect only that particular Eucharist which our Saviour gave to his Disciples yet as applied by the Priest to the Elements that are before him they may affect them also For if they are any otherwise applied to them than to shew what our Saviour intended this Sacrament for and consequently what we may expect in those Elements which we set apart for it if we follow his directions in the Consecration of them They are no more the words of our Saviour Christ but of the Priest who so applies them and from which therefore no such effect can be expected This I take to be a sufficient Bar against placing the Power of Consecration in those words yea though when uttered by our Saviour they should be thought to have had that force in them How much more if even so they were rather declarations from Christ of what the Elements were already become than any way productive of a Sacramental relation in them For neither could our Saviour have truly said This is my Body unless at that instant when he spake those words it were really such And much less could that have been any reason why he should exhort them to take and eat what he then offer'd them as both the tenour of the words and the Hoc est enim corpus meum in the Roman Missal doth yet more plainly declare Because if the words Hoc est corpus meum make the change it must have been Bread and not his Body which our Saviour offer'd his Disciples before he uttered them and willed them to take and eat of But not any longer to insist upon the destruction of that sort of Consecration Let us enquire if it may be after a more legitimate one and such as shall not only be free from the like Exceptions but better answer those Sacramental relations which it is to give birth unto In order whereunto I will consider the Sacramental Elements first as being to become a Sign of Christ's Body and Blood and then as also a Means to communicate
Relation so that the words Hoc est corpus meum c. neither now have nor when Christ himself used them had in them the power of producing it What the true foundation of this relation is or what that is which consecrates those Elements which are to put it on endeavour'd to be made out from some former Discourses And those Elements accordingly considered either as being to become a Sign of Christ's Body and Blood or as being to become also a Means of Communicating that Body and Blood to us and a Pledge to assure us thereof The former of these relations brought about by a declaration of those Purposes for which the Elements are intended whether in the words of the Institution or any other The latter by Thanksgiving and Prayer The usefulness of this Resolution to compromise the Quarrels that have arisen in this Argument upon occasion of what the Antients have said on the one hand for attributing the Power of Consecration to the Prayers and Thanksgivings of the Priest and on the other hand to the words of the Institution Those Quarrels being easily to be accommodated by attributing that Power to the Institution rather as applied than as delivered and as applied also by Prayer and Thanksgiving more than by the rehearsal of it pag. 261. The Contents of the Tenth Part. Of the right Administration of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ENtrance made with enquiring How this Sacrament ought to be administred and therein again whether that Bread wherewith it is celebrated ought to be broken and whether he who administers this Sacrament is obliged by the words of the Institution or otherwise to make an offering unto God of Christ's Body and Blood as well as make a tender of the Sacrament thereof to Men. That the Bread of the Sacrament ought to be broken as that too for the better representation of the breaking of Christ's Body asserted against the Lutherans and their Arguments against it produc'd and answered Whether he who administers this Sacrament is obliged by the words of the Institution or otherwise to make an offering to God of Christ's Body and Blood in the next place enquir'd into and after a declaration of the Doctrine of the Council of Trent in this Affair consideration had of those grounds upon which the Fathers of that Council establish it The words Do this in remembrance of me more particularly animadverted upon and shewn not to denote such an Offering whether they be consider'd as referring to the several things before spoken of and particularly to what Christ himself had done or enjoyn'd the Apostles to do or as referring only to that Body and Blood which immediately precede them In which last Consideration of them is made appear that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may as well and more naturally signifie make That there is nothing in the present Argument to determine it to the notion of Sacrificing or if there were that it must import rather a Commemorative than Expiatory one What is alledg'd by the same Council from Christ's Melchizedekian Priesthood c. more briefly consider'd and answer'd And that Sacrifice which the Council advanceth shewn in the close to be inconsistent with it self contrary to the present state of our Lord and Saviour and more derogatory to that Sacrifice which Christ made of himself upon the Cross The whole concluded with enquiring To whom this Sacrament ought to be administred and particularly whether it either ought or may lawfully be administred to Infants Where the Arguments of Bishop Taylor for the lawfulness of Communicating Infants are produc'd and answered and particularly what he alledgeth from Infants being admitted to Baptism though they are no more qualified for it than they are for the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper pag. 267 The Contents of the Eleventh Part. How the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ought to be receiv'd THE receit of this Sacrament suppos'd by the present Question and that therefore first established against the Doctrine of those who make the supposed Sacrifice thereof to be of use to them who partake not Sacramentally of it Enquiry next made How we ought to prepare our selves for it how to demean our selves at the celebration of it and in what Posture to receive it The preparation taken notice of by our Catechism the Examination of our selves whether we truly repent us of our sins stedfastly purposing to lead a new Life c. and the both necessity and means of that Examination accordingly declar'd The examination of our Repentance more particularly insisted upon and that shewn to be most advantageously made by enquiring how we have gain'd upon those sins which we profess to repent of and particularly upon our most prevailing ones which how they are to be discover'd is therefore enquir'd into and the marks whereby they are to be known assigned and explain'd A transition from thence to the examination of the stedfastness of our Purposes to lead a new Life of our Faith in God through Christ our remembrance of his Death and Charity Where the necessity of that Examination is evinced and the Means whereby we may come to know whether we have those Qualifications in us discover'd and declar'd How we ought to demean our selves at the celebration of this Sacrament in the next place enquir'd into and that shewn to be by intending that Service wherewith it is celebrated and suiting our Affections to the several parts of it The whole concluded with enquiring in what posture of Body this Sacrament ought to be receiv'd Where is shewn first that the Antients so far as we can judge by their Writings receiv'd in a posture of Adoration and particularly in the posture of standing Secondly that several of the Reformed Churches receive in that or the like posture and that those that do not do not condemn those that do Thirdly that there is nothing in the Example of Christ and his Disciples at the first Celebration of this Supper to oblige us to receive it sitting nor yet in what is alledg'd from the suitableness of that Posture to a Feast and consequently to the present one This as it is a Feast of a different nature from common ones and therefore not to receive Laws from them so the receit thereof intended to express the grateful resentment we have of the great Blessing of our Redemption and stir up other Men to the like resentment of it Neither of which can so advantageously be done as by receiving the Symbols of this Sacrament in such a posture of Body as shews the regard we have for him who is the Author of it pag. 289. ERRATA In the Text. PAge 158. line 36. r. they had p. 160. l. antep from of old p. 174. l. 26. a Transubstantiation ib. l. 34. too p. 190. l. 1. for hardly r. barely p. 202. l. 38. after Saviour add in S Matthew St. Mark and St. Paul p. 231. l. 45. r. opinion p. 234. l. 4. for Blood r. what ib. l.
this Sacrament with the declarations of the Antient Fathers concerning them God be thanked we of the Church of England are under no such necessity of either slightly passing over or any way perverting the Story of this Holy Sacrament And therefore being now by the order of my discourse to entreat of the Institution of it I will set down the Story thereof in the words of those that first deliver'd it and bound my Observations by them Mat. 26. Mark 14. Luke 22. 1 Cor. 11. 26. And as they were eating Jesus took Bread and blessed it and brake it and gave it to the disciples and said Take Eat This is my body 22. And as they did eat Jesus took Bread and blessed and brake it and gave to them and said Take Eat This is my body 19. And he took Bread and gave thanks and brake it and gave unto them saying This is my body which is given for you This do in remembrance of me 23. For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you that the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was betrayed took Bread    24. And when he had given thanks he brake it and said Take Eat This is my body which is broken for you This do in remembrance of me 27. And he took the cup and gave thanks and gave it to them saying Drink ye all of it 23. And he took the cup and when he had given thanks he gave it to them and they all drank of it 20. Likewise also the cup after Supper saying 25. After the same manner also he took the cup when he had supped saying 28. For this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins 24. And he said unto them This is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many This cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you This cup is the New Testament in my blood This do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me 29. But I say unto you I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom 25. Verily I say unto you I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine until that day I drink it new in the kingdom of God   Now the first thing I shall take notice of in the History of this Sacrament is the Time of the Institution of it Which we learn from St. Paul to have been the same night in which he was betray'd from the context of the several Evangelists at the Celebration of the Feast of the Passover or rather toward the close of it It being whilst they were yet eating that two of them affirm that he took the Bread of it and bless'd and brake and gave it but so near the conclusion of that Feast that St. Luke and St. Paul tell us that it was after Supper before he took the Cup and gave thanks over it and gave it to his Disciples And though I do not pretend to affirm neither do I know any sober Man that doth that there is any obligation upon us for celebrating it after Supper or any other Meal Our Saviour's celebrating it then being in compliance with those Jews whose Institution he now transcrib'd and reform'd and probably also to intimate its succeeding to that solemnity Tho I acknowledg it to have been an antient usage * Tert. de Cor. cap. 3 in the Church to celebrate it at their Meetings before day and where it was not so soon yet before †Aug. Epist 119. ad Janu. their eating of any thing else as that too out of respect to that Sacrament Yet I see as little reason to grant that there is any more of religion in receiving it fasting than what the custom of the Church or the Laws of decency give it It being not otherwise to be thought that our Saviour would have instituted it at Supper time or rather presently after it And much less that St. Paul would have given it in command to the Corinthians (a) 1 Cor. 11.34 that if any Man hungred he should eat at home before he came to the participation of it and of those Agapae that attended it From the Time of the Institution pass we to the Institution it self and the several things done and said in it Where the first thing I am to take notice of is Christ's taking Bread to wit into his hands and probably from off that table on which it was plac'd Agreeably to that usance of the Jews which he fram'd his own Eucharist by and where as was before * Part 1. observ'd the Father of the Family held it in both his hands whil'st he us'd the words of Consecration or Blessing over it However he so took it to be sure as to separate it from what other Bread then was upon the Table as which the word took in the most simple notion of it will oblige us to believe This importing the choice of some particular Bread from out the rest and leaving the other to the ordinary uses of it Now the Bread which our Saviour thus took was either some whole Loaf of Bread answerably to the former usance or at least some larger but entire piece of one as appears by the breaking of it into several pieces answerably to the several persons that were to partake of it And it was also agreeably to the time when it was made use of unleavened Bread as the Latines have truly observ'd against the Greeks It being upon the first day of the feast of unleavened Bread as three of the Evangelists †Mat. 26.17 Mark 14.12 Luke 22.7 have observ'd that that Passover which immediately preceded this Sacrament was celebrated and consequently that this Sacrament also was But why it should be so far urged against the Greeks as to make it the matter of a quarrel is a very unaccountable thing unless there were somewhat either in the words or in the rites of the Institution which directed to the use of unleavened Bread only For leavened or unleavened matters not after the taking away of that Law which made the difference And much less where the present Law requires only (a) 1 Cor. 5.8 the laying aside of the leaven of malice and wickedness and keeping our Passover feast with the unleavened Bread of sincerity and truth It followeth in the Story And Jesus took Bread and blessed as St. Matthew and St. Mark deliver it or as St. Luke and St. Paul after him gave thanks A thing which will require a more accurate consideration because of the momentousness thereof It being to that Blessing or Thanksgiving probably that we are to assign that both change in it and effects of it which are afterwards attributed to it That therefore we may the better understand this whether Blessing or Thanksgiving we will consider
the words apart and first Christ's being said to bless or bless it even the Bread For the better understanding of which word we are to know that though to bless simply considered may as well refer to God as to the thing over which that Blessing is made Yet we are in reason to understand it here as relating to the Bread as our Translators in the story of St. Matthew plainly do because adding the word it to blessed And Jesus took Bread and blessed it And my reason is first because blessed being a transitive verb it is by the common rules of construction to refer to that noun substantive that immediately preceded it even the Bread and not to any remoter one or to one that is not express'd How much more then if those verbs which follow even brake and gave do also refer to it as they who make Hoc est corpus meum the words of Consecration must necessarily allow For what can be more congruous than to believe when the verb blessed is a transitive one that it referrs to the same noun substantive even Bread to which the foregoing verb took and the following ones brake and gave do But that which is no doubt of much more force in this affair and will more determine the verb blessed to Bread is the use of the same word in St. Paul (b) 1 Cor. 10.16 when applied to the Cup of the Sacrament as it seems to be to the Bread here For by the same reason that the Cup is there affirmed to be blessed by those that administred it and not only so but intimated to be call'd the Cup of Blessing for that reason by the same reason are we to understand the word blessed here to relate to the Bread of it and that our Saviour really blessed it as well as blessed God or gave thanks to God over it And thus far we have the accord of the Council of Trent it self * Sess 13. cap. 1. Ita enim Majores nostri omnes c. apertissimè professi sunt hoc tam admirabi'e Sacramentum in ultimâ coenâ Redemptorem nostrum instituisse cum post panis vini benedictionem se suumque ipsius corpus illis praebere ac suum sang uintem disertis ac perspicuis verbis testatus est because applying the Blessing here spoken of to the Bread yea affirming our Lord Jesus Christ to have blessed the Wine as well as that Bread therefore being the thing which our Saviour is said to have blessed enquire we in the next place what is meant by his blessing it Which must be learn'd in part from the nature of that Blessing wherewith it was blessed by him and in part also from the interest which our Saviour had in the bestowing of it Now what the nature of that Blessing was wherewith the Bread was blessed by him will appear if we consider for what end it was appointed by him who so took and blessed it Which we learn from the Institution it self and from St. Paul's Comment upon it to be in an especial manner for the communion of his Body For the design of the divine Blessing being to make the thing blessed to be useful for that end for which it was appointed If the Communion of the Body of Christ was the end for which the Bread of the Lord's Supper was appointed the Blessing wherewith it was blessed must consequently consist in its usefulness for that end or ends for which it was so appointed by him Which will leave nothing more to us to account for than the interest which our Saviour had in bestowing that Blessing on it Now what that is may appear from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or giving of Thanks which St. Luke and St. Paul make use of to express the same thing as St. Mark and St. Matthew also do to express the Blessing of the Cup. For the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or giving of Thanks importing him to whom it is attributed to address himself unto another Our Saviour must be suppos'd to have acted in the blessing of that Bread not as one who conferr'd that Blessing upon it himself but as one who address'd himself to another for the bestowing of it even to him to whom he gave Thanks Which Particular may the more easily be believ'd because when he only bless'd the five Loaves and two Fishes to give Nourishment to that five thousand Men whom he meant to refresh he look'd up to Heaven (c) Luke 9.16 at the very instant of it which shews from whence he look'd for the bestowing of it even from his Father that was there The result of the Premisses is this Our Saviour being now about to appoint the Bread of the Lord's Supper for a Communion of his Body and other such sacramental Purposes address'd himself to the Father from whom every good and perfect Gift cometh to make the Bread which he now took useful for those Purposes or that I may speak in the language of St. Matthew and St. Mark to bless it for them With what kind of Address or Addresses will best be learn'd by that word which St. Luke and St. Paul made use of to express that action of his even the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or giving of Thanks and which therefore I am in the next place to explain Now as the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth undoubtedly signifie giving Thanks and is accordingly so us'd both by profane and sacred Authors As it must farther signifie in this place because our Saviour in this particular instance could have no other to give Thanks to his giving Thanks to his Father and ours So nothing more therefore will be requir'd toward the understanding of it than to shew 1. What Benefits he so gave Thanks for 2. What Use that Thanksgiving was of toward the procuring of the Blessing desir'd 3. Whether it did not also contain in it some express Request to God for the granting of that Blessing to it 1. What Benefits our Saviour gave Thanks for is not express'd either by the Evangelists or St. Paul and must therefore be learn'd by what they have express'd and particularly concerning the great End of the Institution of this and the other Element of this Sacrament Which if we guide our selves by we shall find this Thanksgiving of our Saviour to have been for the giving of him to die for the Redemption of sinful Man and other the like ends of his Death For requiring his Disciples afterwards to do what he had done for the remembrance of him and particularly of the breaking of his Body for them he must consequently be supposed to have given Thanks to God for giving him for those gracious Purposes as which was the chief design of the whole and which could not be remembred as it ought without such a Thanksgiving for it I think it as reasonable to conclude secondly that our Saviour gave Thanks also for directing himself who spake and did
for you as St. Luke Yet as they all say enough to shew that this Sacrament of Bread and Wine was intended for a Representation of our Saviour's Passion and the violence that was then offer'd to his crucified Body so they do thereby sufficiently intimate that the breaking of the Bread was intended as a Representation of it There being nothing in the Bread to represent this to us but only the breaking of it This however is evident that our Saviour brake that Bread which he before took and blessed And that Rite of breaking was afterwards look'd upon as so considerable that it gave Name to the Sacrament it self and the whole of it from that one Rite entituled The breaking of Bread Our Saviour having thus taken and blessed and broken Bread for thus far to be sure we have Bread whatever we have beside he proceeds to give it to his Disciples For so the three Evangelists assure us Not that the Original of those Evangelists hath any thing in it to express the thing given but that it speaks of his giving somewhat to them and which considering the connexion of this Act of Christ with the former ones cannot reasonably be understood of any other than the Bread which he had before taken and blessed and broken And though St. Paul take no notice of this Gift of our Saviour's in the rehearsal he makes of this his Institution Yet he sufficiently intimates it when he brings him in saying Take Eat This is my Body c. His willing them to take and eat implying his parting with it that they might partake of it This however is manifest from the Evangelists that what our Saviour before took and blessed and brake he gave to his Disciples and I suppose to each of the Disciples in particular and by reaching it forth unto them The former being the manner of that Eucharist by which he fram'd his own Both the one and the other the Ancient Practice of the Church whether by the Hands of him that blessed it or of those Deacons that ministred to him I will not spend time in animadverting upon the words Take Eat which he us'd with the giving of the Bread It may suffice to say as to the former of these that as it is and always was the manner of Guests to take or receive into their hands or in some plate which they held in them what was given to them by another so the Antients knew no other taking or receiving of this Bread than that which was performed by them As little need to be said concerning that eating which our Saviour subjoin'd to the Command of taking or receiving what he gave them Unless there could be any doubt of that 's being Bread which was now to be eaten by them For as what it is to eat Bread is sufficiently known even after we have put it into our mouths to chew it there and transmit it from thence into our Stomachs for the nourishment of our Bodies So that it was Bread which they were commanded to eat St. Paul plainly shews in the words (m) 1 Cor. 11.26 27. which he subjoins to the Institution of this Sacrament He affirming the worthy Receiver of the Eucharist to eat Bread as well as the most unworthy one To go on therefore to those words which our Saviour subjoyn'd to his Precept of taking and eating even those most noted ones This is my Body Words which the wanton Wits of Men have transform'd into many shapes and those too no less monstrous than what they design'd to inferr from them Whereas if they were consider'd without any sinister Affections they would as Aretius long since observ'd (n) Com. in Mat. 26.26 Quomodo autem verae sint propositiones illae Panis est corpus Christi Vinum est sanguis Christi anxie disputatum est Res tamen sint affectibus simplicem habet intellectum Verae sunt ut aliae sacramentales loquutiones Agnus est transitus Circumcisio est foedus sacrificia sunt remissio peccatorum Baptismus est ablutio peccatorum In quibus nemo est tam stupidus ut nodos sibi quaerat Sed ut symbola sacramentalia hae res nominatae accipiuntur Ita judicandum de his propositionibus etiam puto have receiv'd a plain and simple Vnderstanding and which Men would otherwise no more have bogled at than at other Speeches of the like nature For this is my Body and This is my Blood are true as other sacramental Speeches are A Lamb is the Passover Circumcision is a Covenant Sacrifices are the remission of Sins and Baptism the washing away of them In which no Man is so stupid as to seek to entangle himself or go about to create Scruples to other Men. For these things are taken as sacramental Symbols and so I suppose we ought to judge of the former Propositions also Only because there is no one particle in the words This is my Body which hath not among prejudiced Men ministred matter for Dispute I will be so much the more minute in my Explication of them and first of the word This. This is my Body Now that which unprejudiced Men would undoubtedly think to be intended by the word This was the Bread before spoken of and which our Saviour is said to have taken blessed broken and given to his Disciples with a design they should take and eat of it Partly because that was the thing manifestly intended all along and therefore by the common Rules of Construction to be understood also here And partly because the demonstrative Particle This must by the natural importance of it be thought to point out something certain and apparent to them which hitherto nothing but the Bread of the Sacrament was Thus I say unprejudiced Men would be apt to think of the word This though they had nothing to direct them but the words of the Institution How much more then if they should reflect upon what St. Paul (o) 1 Cor. 11.26 27. subjoyneth to and inferreth from them in the account he gives us of that Affair For as often saith he as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup ye do shew forth the Lord's Death till he come And again Wherefore whosoever shall eat this Bread and drink this Cup of the Lord unworthily shall be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord. For it appearing from the words of the Institution that the word This referrs to that which was given them to eat which St. Paul affirmeth to be Bread it must consequently be thought to denote not this Being or Substance in common or individuum vagum or the like but this Bread as St. Paul doth twice express it Conformable hereto whether the Romanists will or no is their own Opinion of the Bread's being transubstantiated by the words Hoc est corpus meum and that Transubstantiation not effected till the last Syllable of meum is pronounc'd For if that Transubstantiation be not effected till then it must
they were first to mention even our Saviour's taking it and giving it to his Disciples because liquid things cannot well be taken by our selves or convey'd to others but by a Cup or by an usual Metonymy of the continent for the thing contained in it set to denote the Wine wherewith it was replenished This Cup as we shall afterwards understand being given them to drink of and as appears from what our Saviour subjoins in the close of St. Matthew's and St. Mark 's account of this matter of the Fruit of the Vine or Wine Now this Cup as he had done before with the Bread he in like manner (f) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luke 22.20 1 Cor. 11.25 after he had supp'd took into his Hand or Hands as the fashion was in the Eucharistical Cup of the Jews but however so took as was before observed concerning the Bread as to separate it from what other Wine then was upon the Table and appropriated it to his own purposes The Cup being thus taken by our Saviour into his Hands and held by him there till he gave it to his Disciples Two of the Evangelists tell us he gave thanks over it and as appears by what was said before in the matter of the Bread and by St. Paul's elsewhere (g) 1 Cor. 10.16 entitling it the Cup of blessing which we bless by that Thanksgiving and Prayer blessed it or rather recommended it to the Father to be blessed by him and made useful for those purposes for which it was design'd and particularly for the Communion of his Blood Which Blessing there is no doubt the Father granted thereupon and fitted it for that for which it was so separated and recommended to him As because he readily promis'd the like or a greater Blessing to the Blessing (h) Num. 6.23 c. of the Jewish Priests and may therefore be presum'd as ready to grant this to the Blessing of his well beloved Son So because our Saviour when he gave this Cup to his Disciples told them even then that it was his Blood of the New Testament and St. Paul that being blessed by such as himself it was the Communion of Christ's Blood which it could not have been in either instance without the Blessing of the Father Our Saviour having thus taken and given thanks over the Cup or blessed it gave it to his Disciples saying Drink ye all of it But whether as was said before in the matter of the Bread he gave it into each of his Disciples Hands or to him only that sat next to him and by him to be handed to the next is not material neither will I therefore concern my self about it Sure it is that by the words accompanying that Gift he signified it to be his Mind that they should all drink of it and St. Mark in particular tells us that they all drank of it Upon the strength of what Motive is in the next place to be enquir'd but which we shall not need to go farther than St. Matthew for or at least not for the general notion of it For this saith he in our Saviour's name is my Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins The thing which I now offer you is my Blood of the New Testament and it is upon that account I both invite and oblige you all to drink of it And if it was even when he offer'd it to them to drink his Blood of the New Testament one would think it should need no new Blessing or Consecration to make it such and much less that those words by which he declar'd it to be so should be that blessing or Consecration it self But be that as it will at present for the fuller discussion of these things belongs to another place most certain it is from the other Evangelists and from St. Paul that our Saviour when he gave the Cup to the Disciples made use of these or the like words upon what occasion soever they were employed by him And as certain it is from the Controversies now on foot that the words consider'd in themselves will require an explication to which therefore I shall now address my self In order thereunto as I did before in the matter of the Bread enquiring what the subject of this Proposition is what the thing predicated of it and what the importance of the word Is which is made use of to joyn them together And here in the first place it is easy to see that whatever difficulties the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or This may be encumbred with when set to denote the Bread because of a different Gender from it both in the Greek and the Latin yet it is encumbred with no such difficulties here Because even in St. Matthew and St. Mark where it hath no Substantive affixed to it it is of the same Gender with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Cup before spoken of and which they were also commanded to drink of as well as with the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or the Blood that follows it It is alike easy to see secondly that whatever pretence may be made for the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or This in the former Proposition having respect to some individuum vagum yet there is not the like pretence here Because though St. Matthew and St. Mark add no Substantive to it yet St. Luke and St. Paul in their History of the Institution add 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to it and so shew This Cup even the Cup before spoken of to be the thing whereof our Saviour spake And indeed as the rules of Construction require us so to understand it even where the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Cup is not express'd and much more where This is my Blood is assign'd as a motive to the Disciples drinking of the Cup For how could it otherwise be any motive to it if that Cup were not the Blood here spoken of So our Saviour's commanding his Disciples to drink of that Cup in order to their partaking of his Blood and his afterwards describing it by the title of the Fruit of the Vine shews the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Cup to be set to denote the liquor that was contained in it and particularly the Blood of the Grape Which is a proof that figurative expressions are no such strangers to the Doctrine of a Sacrament because one is of necessity to be allow'd in the subject of this important Proposition and is accordingly allow'd by the Romanists themselves The subject of the present Proposition being thus found out and shewn to be no other than the Cup before spoken of or rather the Wine of it Let us in the next place take a view of the thing affirmed of it and wherein indeed there is some variety even between those who give an Historical account of this affair St. Matthew and St. Mark representing the Cup here spoken of as Christ's Blood of the New Testament or
Covenant which was shed for many for the remission of fins but St. Luke and St. Paul as the New Testament or Covenant in his Blood which was shed for them For which cause I will consider the thing here affirmed under each of these notions and first as Christ's Blood of the New Testament or Covenant which I conceive to be the clearest and most proper declaration of it Because it appears even by that St. Paul who makes use of the other expression that the Blood of Christ is the principal thing signified by it even in that very Chapter where he entitles it the New Testament in his Blood For not only doth he before (i) 1 Cor. 10.16 entitle the Cup the Communion of his Blood as he doth the Bread in the same verse the Communion of his Body but immediately after the words of the Institution declare him who eateth that Bread and drinketh that Cup with due preparation to shew forth the Lord's Death till he come as him who eateth and drinketh unworthily to be guilty of his Body and Bloody The Blood of Christ therefore being the thing principally signified and consequently the principal thing predicated of the Cup by the one and the other reason would that we should enquire what our Saviour meant by it that is to say whether that Blood which now ran in his Veins and was shortly after to be shed or only a memorial of it A Question which will soon be voided not only by what I have before said concerning the Notion of Christ's Body but by the Adjuncts of that very Blood whereof we speak The Blood of the New Testament or Covenant as appears by a Text of the Author to the Hebrews (k) Heb. 9.14 c. and by what I have elsewhere (l) Expl. of the Sacrament in general Part 2. discours'd upon it being no other than that Blood which the Mediator of it shed at his Death For that Author tells us that neither that nor any other Testament or Covenant can be firm without it And the Blood that was shed for remission of Sins the very same It being by means of the same Death that the Redemption of Sins against the First Testament or Covenant is procur'd which is but another Name for the Remission of them And I shall only add for the better explanation of those words even the Blood of the New Testament or Covenant that as of old God would not enter nor did enter into the First Covenant with the Israelites till he was aton'd and they sprinkled by the Blood of their Sacrifices So neither would he enter into the New till he was first aton'd and we sprinkled by the Blood of the Sacrifice of his Son and that Blood therefore conformably to what was said of the Blood of the First Covenant stiled the Blood of the New There will be no great difficulty after what I have said of the Blood of the New Testament or Covenant as to the meaning of that New Testament or Covenant in Christ's Blood which St. Luke and St. Paul bring in our Saviour as affirming the Cup to be Because thereby must consequently be meant that New Covenant which was brought about by the Bloud of his Cross even that by which the same Saint Paul elsewhere (m) Col. 1.20 tells us that Christ made Peace between us and God Which will consequently leave nothing more to us to enquire into upon this Head than the importance of that is which joyns the subject and the foregoing predicates together and how the Cup of this Sacrament was and is his Blood of the New Testament or Covenant and how the New Testament or Covenant in his Blood For the understanding whereof though it may suffice to remit my Reader to what I before said upon the account of the Bread's being Christ's Body because that mutatis mutandis may be apply'd to the Particle Is here Yet I shall add ex abundanti that there cannot well be any doubt of its being taken figuratively here either in the one or the other predication concerning it Because the Cup of this Sacrament cannot literally and properly be both his Blood of the New Testament or Covenant and the New Testament or Covenant in it which yet in some or other of the Sacred Writers it is affirm'd to be Which as it will make it so much the more reasonable to allow of that figurative Sense here which we have attributed to the same Particle Is in This is my Body So consequently make it reasonable to understand by This is my Blood of the New Testament which answers directly to the other This is a Sign and a Memorial and a Means of its conveyance as well as the Bread is of my Body And indeed as the Cup or rather the Wine of it may well pass for a Sign of that Blood as for other Reasons so for that effusion which is attributed to it So that it is both a Memorial and a Means of its conveyance is evident from St. Paul's bringing in our Saviour subjoining the words Do this as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me to the Story of the Cup and elsewhere representing the same Cup as the Communion of his Blood This I take to be a fair account of the Particle Is as it is made use of to connect the Cup and Christ's Blood of the New Tescament or Covenant And it will be no less easie to give as clear an account of it as it is made use of to connect the same Cup and the New Testament or Covenant in his Blood That Cup representing to us God's exhibiting together with it Christ's Blood and the Merits of it and our receiving that Blood and the Merits of it with that thankfulness which doth become us and a Mind resolv'd to walk worthy of those Benefits we receive by it I will conclude this long Discourse concerning the Institution of this Sacrament when I have lightly animadverted upon that which St. Matthew and St. Mark bring in our Saviour subjoining to all he had said concerning the Elements thereof To wit that he would not any more drink of this Fruit of the Vine for so St. Matthew expresseth it until he should drink it new with them in his Father's Kingdom For though it should be granted what Grotius contends for out of St. Luke that these words were spoken just before the Institution of this Sacrament and only plac'd here upon the account of Christ's being again to speak of the Cup Yet thus much must be granted to St. Matthew and St. Mark 's placing it here that it was the Fruit of the Vine that our Saviour gave them and they accordingly drank of even in this Sacrament of the Lord's Supper There being no more reason nor so much neither considering that that is the immediate Antecedent to deny this Fruit of the Vine's referring to what our Saviour gave his Disciples and they all drank of than there would be to deny
a danger of shedding in carrying about the Cup in the Church when among us who practise it in great Congregations no such danger doth appear and when that danger may in a great measure be prevented by bringing those that are to receive to the Rails of the Communion Table to take it from the Priest there And a Man would wonder no less thirdly why so much ado should be made about the carrying of it to sick Folks and the danger that attends it especially when it is over Mountains Because if Men were prompted as they ought to a frequent Communion in the publick Assemblies there would be the less need of carrying it to them when sick Or if it were thought meet however that they should receive the Communion when sick it might be consecrated as well as administred to them at home and a reasonable number of Communicants provided to receive with them as it is with us Or if that were not thought fit neither but that they must by all means be debar'd the Cup because of the danger of the Liquors growing sowre by being kept for them or of its shedding in the carriage yet is there no imaginable reason why they that are whole and come to it instead of expecting its being brought to them should be therefore deprived of it even in the Church because it may not be convenient to be brought to their Houses it may be once These things I say a Man might well wonder at but especially when they are urg'd as they are for a total removing of the Cup. But a Man would more than wonder fourthly if he did not know the force of Prejudice and Custom that the hanging of the Liquor in the Lay-men's Beards should be made so great a difficulty and danger as to debar them of the use of it For not to say that it is strange that if that were so considerable a thing neither our Saviour should be aware of it when he instituted the Cup nor the Church in so many Centuries of Years take care to prevent it especially when Beards were more in Fashion than they have been of late A Man would think that if the Blood of Christ and the observation of a Command of his were a matter of as great moment as the fear of the loss of any of that Blood in the Lay-mens Beards A Man would think I say that in such a Case both the Priests should have enjoin'd the Laity and the Laity for that time have willingly submitted to the shaving of their Beards rather than have suffered themselves for the sake of such an excrement to be robb'd of Christ's Blood or go against his Institution and Command To take away the Cup of the Sacrament for such like Fears as these being somewhat more extravagant than Lycurgus King of Thrace's cutting down all the Vines of his Kingdom for fear of the ill use that might be made of the Fruit of them In fine a Man might wonder if such like things as these were an affront to the Holy Sacrament and as such of sufficient force to remove the use of the Cup why our Saviour should not have found out some more decent place than the Stomach of the Faithful to bestow one Element of the Sacrament in or than the Stomach of the Priest to bestow them both They who are acquainted with the inside of that knowing it in that respect to be a more unseemly place for one or the other Element to be lodged in than many of those which they seem to be so jealous of and for fear of any pollution by which they deprive the Faithful of the benefit of the Cup and of that whether Wine or Blood that is contained in it The third thing pretended for depriving the Faithful of the Cup is that whole and entire Christ is contained under one only Species (r) Trid. Conc. Sess 21. cap. 3. Which the Council of Trent doth so peremptorily affirm that it pronounceth an Anathema upon any one that shall deny (s) ib. Can. 3. that whole and entire Christ the Fountain and Author of all Graces is receiv'd under the only Species of Bread For if that be true what need is there of the receit of the Cup by them or indeed what presumption of Christ's having given any Command concerning it But are they so sure as they would be thought to be that whole and entire Christ is contain'd under the sole Species of Bread Or if it were that it were therefore indifferent whether we receiv'd the Cup or no Nay is there not sufficient reason to believe that whole and entire Christ is not contained under it but under the one and other Species For beside that our Saviour by making choice of two distinct Elements to become them made as manifest a separation between his Body and Blood in the Sacrament as he did upon the Cross and may therefore be presum'd to give them if he gave them at all in their sense not conjunctly but apart and in that separate estate in which he had put them Beside that he requir'd not only two distinct and separate Acts those of eating and drinking I mean but two Acts that were distant in time toward the partaking of that Body and Blood and may therefore be yet more presum'd to give them not conjunctly but apart and agreeably to those Acts which he enjoin'd for the partaking of them If the Body and Blood of Christ are contained under and received with the sole Species of Bread as to be fure they must if whole and entire Christ be It must be either by vertue of those words Hoc est corpus meum This is my Body or by vertue of those words and the words that follow even This is my Blood of the New Testament As one would think that they who lay so much stress upon those words should readily grant either the one or the other or by vertue of that natural Connexion and Concomitancy to speak the words (t) Sess 13. cap. 3. of the Trent-Council whereby the parts of the Lord Christ who is now risen from the dead no more to die again are joined together between themselves If they who maintain whole Christ and consequently his Body and Blood to be contained under the Species of Bread affirm that to be by the sole vertue of those words Hoc est corpus meum or This is my Body They must consequently make them signifie This is my Blood as well as my Body as without which even in their own opinion so omnipotent an Effect is not to be produc'd Which suppos'd I would fain know whether they signifie so much always or only when the Sacrament is administred in one kind and to those alone to whom it is so administred If the words Hoc est corpus meum signifie so always and the like will follow if the Body and Blood of Christ be by any means brought together under the Species of Bread then is there no
receiving God's Creatures of Bread and Wine according to his Son and our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy Institution may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood In fine it gives us to understand * Art of Rel. 28. which is yet more express that to such as rightly worthily and with a true Faith receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper the Bread which we break is the partaking of the Body of Christ and likewise the Cup of Blessing a partaking of the Blood of Christ For what more could have been said unless it had made use of that particular Expression which yet it doth use where it declares the general nature of a Sacrament what more I say could have been said to shew that this Sacrament is no naked or ineffectual Sign of the Body and Blood of Christ but such a Sign as is also ordained as a Means whereby we receive the same and so sure and certain a one that if we rightly and worthily receive that Sign we do as verily receive the Body and Blood of Christ as we do the Sacrament thereof How well the Scripture agrees with the Doctrine of our Church in this Particular will not be difficult to shew whether we do consider its making use of the most emphatical Phrase which our Church doth concerning this Sacrament or the Effects which it attributeth to it For it is St. Paul (a) 1 Cor. 10.16 as well as our Church that affirms that the Bread which we break is the Communion of the Body of Christ and that the Cup which we bless is the Communion of his Blood Words which considering the place they have in that Chapter from whence they are borrowed cannot admit of a lower sense than that the elements of this Sacrament are at least a Means of that Communion because alledged by him as a proof or at least as an illustration of their really having fellowship with Devils that partook of the Sacrifices that were offer'd to them For if the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament were not a Means as well as a sign of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Christ Neither could the Gentiles Sacrifices be a Means of their or other Men's Communion with those Devils to whom they were offer'd and therefore neither charge them with any real fellowship with Devils but only with a sign or semblance of it Which how it agrees with St. Paul's charging the partakers of those Sacrifices with having fellowship with Devils as that too upon the account of the Gentiles Sacrificing to Devils and not to God I shall leave all sober Men to judge Such evidence there is from that one place of St. Paul concerning the Lords Supper being a Means as well as a Sign whereby we come to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ And we shall find it no less confirm'd by an effect which the Scripture attributes to one of its Symbols and which is in that place by an usual Synecdoche set to denote the whole Sacrament That I mean where St. Paul affirms (b) 1 Cor. 12.13 that we have been all made to drink into one Spirit For as the foregoing mention of Baptism makes it reasonable to believe that these words ought to be understood of the Cup or Wine of the Lord's Supper So we cannot without great violence to the words understand less by being made to drink into one Spirit than our partaking by Means of that Cup of the Blood of Christ and the Benefits thereof of which the Spirit of God is no doubt one of the principal ones To be made to drink into that Blood or the Spirit of God importing somewhat more even in common understanding than to receive a naked sign of them And though I know that some of the Reformed Churches and particularly those of Zuinglius and Oecolampadius's institution have been charg'd with meaner thoughts concerning the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper Yet whosoever shall take the pains to peruse what our Cosins (c) Hist Transubstant Papal cap. 2. hath collected upon this Argument and particularly what he quotes from Bucer (d) ibid. will find that they always thought or at least now do that Christ's true Body and Blood are truly exhibited given and taken together with the visible signs of Bread and Wine as well as signified by them But because the question is not so much at present concerning this Sacrament's being a Means whereby we receive the Body and Blood of Christ as what kind of Means it is how it conveys to us the Body and Blood of Christ and how we receive them by it Therefore enquire we so far as we may what our Church delivers in these particulars and what evidence there is from the Scripture of our Churches Orthodoxy therein Now though we may not perhaps find in any Monument of our Church a distinct and particular Answer to the questions before propos'd Yet we may find that in the eight and twentieth Article of our Church which may serve for a general Answer to them all and for a particular answer too to the last of them The Doctrine thereof being that the Body of Christ and the same mutatis mutandis must be said of his Blood is given taken and eaten in the Supper after an heavenly and spiritual manner only and again that the mean whereby the Body of Christ is receiv'd and taken in the Supper is Faith For if the Body and Blood of Christ be given taken and eaten or drunken in the Supper after a heavenly and spiritual manner only that Supper must so far forth be a means purely heavenly and Spiritual the conveyance thereof of the same heavenly and spiritual nature and the reception of it also And if again the Mean whereby the Body and Blood of Christ are receiv'd and taken in the Supper is Faith then do we in the opinion of our Church receive them by Faith which will serve for a particular answer to the last of the questions propos'd To all which if we add our Churches teaching us to pray to God even in the prayer of Consecration that we receiving the Creatures of Bread and Wine according to our Saviour Jesus Christ's Holy Institution may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood so we shall be able to make out a more particular answer to the questions propos'd and such as we shall find reason enough to allow For it appears from the premisses and particularly from the prayer of Consecration that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is such a spiritual Mean as depends for the force of it not upon any vertue that is infus'd into it and much less upon any natural union there is between that and the Body and Blood of Christ but upon our receiving it on the one hand according to our Saviours Holy Institution and God's bestowing on the other hand Christ's Body and Blood upon such a reception of it It appears therefore that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper
will be said it may be that literally speaking one thing cannot be another unless it be substantially changed into that which it is said to be and therefore if the Bread be Christ's Body it must be substantially chang'd into it To which I answer that they who say that literally speaking one thing cannot be another unless it be substantially chang'd into that which it is said to be do either mean that it cannot be so standing the ordinary Laws of Nature or that it cannot be so even by the extraordinary Power of God If the former of these be their meaning they say nothing that can be of force to perswade that one thing can be another even by being substantially chang'd into that which it is said to be Because standing the ordinary Laws of Nature at the same time any thing is substantially chang'd into another it is no more that which it sometime was and cannot therefore in propriety of speech be said to be that which it is substantially chang'd into On the other side if they who say that literally speaking one thing cannot be another unless it be substantially chang'd into that which it is said to be mean thereby that it cannot be so even by the extraordinary Power of God They do not only take away from themselves the power of pressing upon our Belief the contradictions of Christ's corporal Presence in the Sacrament upon the score of God's extraordinary Power For it should seem by that that there are things to which even an extraordinary Power cannot reach but leave us at liberty where the like impossibilities occurr to order our Interpretations of Scripture accordingly and consequently if the literal sense of a Text lead to them to abdicate that and impose upon it a figurative one Which if we do we shall find a necessity of putting a figurative sense upon those very words which are the subject of the present Consideration For how is it more impossible for God to make Bread continuing Bread to be Christ's Body than it is to make that Body continuing a Body to be circumscrib'd and not circumscrib'd as it must be if it be whole and entire in this or that particular Sacrament and yet at the same time be in ten thousand others and as many more as they shall be pleas'd to consecrate So little reason is there to believe that if by the word This in This is my Body be meant the Bread of the Sacrament any substantial change of it can be inferred from them And there is as little reason to believe it if by the word This in This is my Body be meant the Thing which I now give you For either our Saviour meant the Bread by it and then the former exceptions will recurr or there are no footsteps in the words of any change whatsoever and much less of that substantial change which is endeavour'd to be inferred from them But beside that the change we speak of hath no ground in the former words though they should be literally understood There is enough to oppose against it from other places of Scripture and particularly from those which represent the Bread of the Eucharist as remaining after Consecration Such as they are that mention it as eaten by the Communicants (i) 1 Cor. 11.26 27 28. and as the Communion (k) 1 Cor. 10.16 of that Body which it was intended as a Symbol of For how is that eaten in the Sacrament which hath not now any existence or how the Communion of Christ's Body which hath no being of its own But it may be for all St. Paul's naming it Bread he meant nothing such but either the Body of Christ under the species of Bread or only those species themselves I will not now say though I might that the Scripture will be a very uncertain thing if such forc'd interpretations as these be easily admitted But I say that neither of these interpretations alone will fit the texts we speak of and that there is as little reason to admit them both For thus for instance though we should allow the word Bread to signifie the Body of Christ under the species of Bread where the Scripture makes mention of its being eaten by the Communicants Yet can we not allow it the same signification where it is affirmed to be the Communion of Christ's Body Because that which is the Communion of any thing must be a distinct thing from that which it pretends to be the Communion of On the other side though we should allow the word Bread to signifie only the species thereof where the Scripture makes mention of its being the Communion of Christ's Body Yet can we not with the like reason allow it the same signification where it is said to be eaten by the Communicants Because it is such Bread as makes the unworthy eaters of it to be guilty of Christ's Body (l) 1 Cor. 11.27 which according to the Doctrine of the Romanists nothing but the eating of that Body it self can do If any thing be to be said in this particular it must be that the word Bread is sometime to be taken for the Body of Christ under the species of Bread and sometime also for those species themselves But beside that as Tully sometime spake concerning those that assign'd Atoms a motion of declination this is as it were to allot words their respective Provinces and prescribe them what they shall signifie in this or that particular place I do not see how either of these senses can without great violence to the text be impos'd upon those words of St. Paul The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ Because if as is probable enough the Bread were then broken as it was in our Saviour's Eucharist before the words This is my Body pass'd upon it no other Bread can be meant by it even in the opinions of the Romanists themselves than true and proper Bread and not either the Body of Christ under the species of Bread or the species of Bread separate from the substance of it Agreeable hereto is the testimony of Sense and which is the more considerable here because it hath not only no clear revelation against it but as appears from the premisses hath plain revelation for it For whatever pretence may be made against the testimony of Sense where there is any just surmise of revelations being against it Yet can there not certainly be any where there is not only no such surmise but as plain and express revelation as can be reasonably desir'd To question our Senses in such a case being to question revelation also because concurring with the Testimony thereof Only if any think that revelation not to be clear enough because as hath been sometime suggested St. Paul may as well give the title of Bread to that Body of Christ which was made of it as Moses (m) Exod. 7.12 did that of a Rod to those Serpents which arose from
form and figure and circumscription and in a word the essence of a Body But after the resurrection it became immortal and above corruption and was thought worthy to sit at the right hand of God and is worshipped by every creature as being called the Body of the Lord of nature So that if the two natures of Christ ought to be look'd upon even now as two distinct and different ones and not one nature swallowed up into the other We also in the opinion of this Holy Man ought to look upon this Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament as two distinct things and upon the Sacrament in particular however dignified with a noble relation yet as of the same nature and figure and form as it was before it was advanced to it For Theodoret arguing the distinction of Christ's two natures from the distinction there is between the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament and particularly from that Sacrament's continuing in its former nature and essence must consequently suppose that to have been a thing then known and confess'd as from which otherwise he could not reasonably have argued the other I am not ignorant indeed that even these passages have met with subtle evasions and such as shew in some measure the art of those that fram'd them But as whosoever shall compare them with those words to which they are apply'd will find them to be rather subtle than solid So they put such a sense upon the words of their respective Authors as if they should be admitted would make them look rather like Sophisters than Fathers of the Church like Men who intended to impose upon their Disciples rather than to enlighten them in the Truth For what other would it have been in Theodoret to have argued against the change of Christ's Body into the divine essence from the continuing of the Symbols of it in their essence and figure and form if he had meant no more thereby than that they remained what they were in their outward appearances as the Romanists are willing to understand him or as they are sometime pleas'd to phrase it in their outward substance For so the Body of Christ also might have remain'd as to the outward appearances thereof and yet have been as substantially chang'd into the divine essence or nature as the Bread of the Sacrament is said to be into the substance of Christ's Body But beside that the Antients represent the Sacramental Elements as continuing what they were and thereby sufficiently impugne that substantial change of them into Christ's Body and Blood which this first Assertion imports They represent them also as Types and Symbols and Images thereof and as we should therefore think as distinct things from them No like being the same with that to which it is said to be like nor indeed any more capable of being so than that which is the most different from it Now how standing the substantial change of the Sacramental Elements can these titles be admitted Or what is there to build that Typicalness or Symbolicalness or resemblance on Certainly no other than those aiery species thereof which in the opinion of those that maintain them have themselves no subject to uphold them But as it doth not appear that the Antients believ'd any such species and one (x) August ep ad Dardan 57. Tolle ipsa corporae qualitatibus corporum non erit ubi sint Et ideo necesse est ut non sint Veruntamen si moles ipsa corporis quantacunque vel quantulacunque sit penitus auseratur qualitates ejus non erit ubi sint quamvis non mole metiendae sint of the Learnedest of them deni'd the possibility thereof So they sometime place the Symbolicalness of the Sacramental Elements in such properties thereof as can belong to no other than their respective substances For thus they apparently do when they represent them as Symbols of Christ's mystical Body upon the account of their being made up of the substance of sevelal granes and several Grapes as that Body of Christ is of the respective members of it This importing the union of several substances into a Mass or Body and consequently that that is much more a substance which is made up of an aggregation of them 2. It appearing from the premisses how little ground there is to believe that the whole substance of the Bread is chang'd into the substance of Christ's Body and the whole substance of the Wine into the substance of Christ's Blood We shall the less need to concern our selves in the examination of that which follows even that those substances of Bread and Wine are so chang'd into the substances of Christ's Body and Blood as to retain nothing of what they were before save only the species thereof For if they can in no sense be said to be substantially chang'd how much less to such a degree as to retain nothing of what they were save only the species thereof But as this Assertion whatever it is hath something peculiar in it in the common understanding of the World So it may not therefore be amiss especially when the Council of Trent seems to have made a peculiar Article of it to consider it apart and both enquire what grounds it hath to support it self and oppose proper reasons to it In order whereunto I will consider it as importing first that nothing of the substance of Bread and Wine remains and secondly as importing that the species or accidents thereof do If they who affirm that nothing of the substance of the Bread and Wine remains mean no more thereby than that nothing thereof remains in the form or essence of Bread and Wine as one would think they should not by their affirming them to be chang'd into the substance of Christs Body and Blood They may then be thought to say somewhat which may seem to have some foundation in those words This is my Body and This is my Blood because those words make no mention of any thing else but them But then as they must also suppose that the matter thereof remains though in another form or essence because otherwise the substance thereof will not be chang'd but annihilated So they must suppose too an addition made thereby to the substance of Christ's Body because a new accession of matter to it Which being granted the change will be made not into the whole substance of Christ's Body and Blood as Transubstantiation was before said to import but only into that part thereof into which they are affirmed to be chang'd On the other side if they who affirm that nothing of the substance of Bread and Wine remains mean thereby that nothing remains in the form of Bread and Wine or any other substance They then do not only destroy the change of them into the substance of Christ's Body and Blood because that change supposeth the former matter of them to abide though in another form or essence but take away all pretence of founding
under the Species of Bread and Wine So they thereby ascribe the breaking or shedding of this Sacrifice rather to the Species under which they are offer'd than to the Body and Blood of Christ under them But beside that there is a manifest difference between the Assertion I am now upon and our Saviour's words as to that Body and Blood of Christ which they both profess to intreat of There is no less signal a difference between them as to the existence of that Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament which will be a yet farther prejudice against the inferring of this Assertion from them For whereas the utmost that our Saviour's words can be thought to import is the simple existence of his Body and Blood in the Sacrament the Assertion we are now upon proceeds to affirm that they exist under the Species of the Sacramental Elements as that too not only under the Species of their proper Element but under the one and the other of them Which how different it is from the importance of our Saviour's words will not be difficult for those to see who can discern any difference between a simple affirmation of any thing and that which proceeds also to determine the modus of it But it will be said it may be that though our Saviour's words do not expresly affirm the existing of his Body and Blood under the Sacramental Species yet they say that from which it may by just consequence be deduc'd If they do I willingly yield they say enough to justifie the present Assertion But I say withall that there is nothing in them which can give countenanee to such a Surmise For beside that they make no express mention of those Sacramental Species under which this Body and Blood are supposed to exist If they say any thing which may be thought to concern those Species it must be the conversion of them also into that Body and Blood into which their respective substances are chang'd That which our Saviour pronounc'd the words over being no doubt Species as well as Substances and those Species therefore as well as their Substances to fall under the same change if those words were intended to effect one 4. Now though these are Difficulties enough to choak any indifferent Man's Belief if they do not also trouble the Belief of those who pretend to be the most zealous Asserters of Transubstantiation Yet lest either they or we should want any thing to exercise it or improve the meritoriousness thereof they proceed to assert in express terms that this true Body and true Blood of Christ are as truly really and substantially contained in or under those Species under which they are affirmed to exist I will not as yet alledge any of those Difficulties wherewith this Assertion is encumbred because it may be time enough to do that when we have enquir'd into the grounds of it But as those Difficulties are apparent enough to make any Man stand upon his guard when such Assertions as these are endeavour'd to be impos'd upon him So one would think they should prevail so far with those who pretend to advance them as to see that they have sufficient ground for their Confidence in it Which whether they have or no let those Persons judge who consider first what can never be too often inculcated that whatever ground there is for a substantial Presence in the words This is my Body and This is my Blood it is for the substantial Presence of a Body broken and Blood shed for so the very Letter of the Text informs us and not for the substantial Presence of glorified ones Neither will it avail to say that they also affirm them to be broken and shed in their respective Species and ought not therefore to be debarr'd the use of those words for the proof of that substantial Presence which they advance For as it is evident that they mean no more thereby than that those Species are broken and shed as appears from their representing the immolation of Christ himself as a bloodless one So it is alike evident therefore that they mean not such a Body and Blood as the Text advanceth and ought not therefore to argue the substantial Presence thereof from it But let us suppose that our Saviour and the Tridentine Fathers meant one and the same Body and Blood I mean Christ's glorified ones and consequently that so far forth they have a right to make use of the present words yet how doth it appear that any substantial Presence of that Body and Blood can be inferred from them What is there in the Words themselves that can give any countenance to it If there be any thing in the words This is my Body and This is my Blood that may be thought to look that way it is manifestly that Is which connects the Subject and Predicate together because the word which the Romanists themselves make use of to press us with the Belief of that substantial Presence which they inculcate But what reason have they to take that for a proof of a substantial Presence of Christ's glorified Body and Blood which in their own opinion doth not reach it because having a respect only to that whether Body or Blood to which it is prefix'd and not as it must and ought to be to betoken a substantial Presence of a glorified Christ to both of them together For though the Tridentine Fathers assert that the glorified Body and Blood of Christ are contain'd indifferently under the Species of either Element yet only the Body under the Species of Bread and the Blood under the Species of the Wine by vertue of the words And the word Is therefore not of sufficient force to prove any substantial Presence of them Because Christ's glorified Body and Blood though they may be vertually and objectively present to us when consider'd apart yet cannot be substantially present but by a real Union and Connexion as they themselves have taught us to believe Now as where there is so little ground for the belief of a substantial Presence there may be place for alledging Arguments against it both from Sense and Reason For though Sense and Reason should be of no force against the certain Revelations of God yet nothing hinders but they may be where no such Revelation doth appear so especially if we find that the Arguments which they offer are such as are confirm'd to us by Revelation and in a manner put into our mouths by it For such I account that which Sense offers us for that 's being Bread and not a humane Body which is put into our Hands or Mouths and from thence transmitted to our Stomachs Our Eye and Touch and Taste assuring us that it is Bread and not the Body of a Man under the Species of Bread and much less that glorified Body which the Romanists would perswade us into For what other is that Argument for the substance thereof I mean which our Saviour sometime offer'd
that he is a reasonable Creature which points out the very Essence of him But as the word Is hath this certain signification in the general as to point to somewhat that naturally belongs to the Subject to which it relates whether it be of the Essence or only an Accident thereof So it may so far forth be capable of being alter'd from its native signification to a foreign one which is the thing this Argument was intended to impugne But leaving such Niceties as these to such as take more pleasure in them that so we may with more freedom apply our selves to the Consideration of the Scriptures Let us as is no doubt more for our Profit consider what they alledge from thence to impugn the figurativeness of this so much controverted word Is Where the first thing that occurrs is that in those words which respect the Cup the word Is in the original Greek is wanting in St. Luke For whatever is pretended it is not wanting in S. Paul though it be out of its usual order And this for ought I can see is made one of those potent Arguments which confounded Piscator and caused him after he had many years stoutly defended the Figurativeness thereof to retract his Opinion in that Particular But as I see no such force in this or the other Arguments to occasion any change of Opinion So the word Is is so often understood that St. Luke might upon that account take the less care to express it especially having before made use of it in the matter of the other Element And I shall only add that if there be any thing which seems to press hard upon the supposed figurativeness of the word Is it must be that the Hebrew for ought appears hath no word to express Is or Are and our Saviour therefore when he pronounc'd the present Propositions to have uttered them without any word to answer to it only mentioning This my Body and This my Blood as the Scripture speaks in the like Cases Which suppos'd one would think the figurativeness of those Propositions should not be plac'd where we have done it and because there seems nothing else to place it in to be utterly banish'd from them But as it is plain from the Evangelists translating those words This is my Body and This is my Blood that the word Is though not express'd yet was always understood by the Hebrews So to suppose the contrary is to destroy the literal Sense as well as the figurative because there can be no Sense at all unless it be either expressed or understood By the same Reason therefore that they who advance the literal Sense of those Propositions place that literal Sense in the word Is though it be rather suppos'd than express'd By the very same Reason may we place the figurativeness thereof in it and interpret those Propositions by it One only Argument remains if yet it deserve that Name that the literal sense is the only one that can bring Men to a setledness in the Doctrine of the Eucharist or give us any good Assurance when we come to appear before Christ's Judgment-Seat They who run after Tropes and Figures knowing not where to fix as appears by the differences that are between them and much less likely to stand in the day of Temptation or in that more terrible day of the Lord Jesus But as it is now pretty evident that they who follow a figurative Sense are neither so uncertain in themselves nor so different from one another (l) Vid. Cosins Hist Trans Papal cap. 2. that any Man can with Reason reproach them upon that account So they who pretend to follow the literal Sense are so far from coming to any settledness in this Affair that they cannot agree what that literal Sense is and ought not therefore to be more confident of their own future standing at the day of Trial than a sincere pursuit of the Truth and a belief they have it will be able to give them Which as it is not deni'd to them by us so will it is hoped be as easily granted to us by them when they consider more calmly of our Opinions and the grounds of them 2. But let us suppose that the words in controversie were to be taken in the literal sense and whatever can be fairly deduc'd from thence to be the genuine issue of Christianity Yet how doth it appear that that which we call Consubstantiation and they though improperly enough a true real and substantial Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament can receive any countenance from it For not only do the Lutherans maintain a simple Presence of them in the Eucharist but so intimate a Presence also that they and the Sacramental Elements make up one compound By means whereof as the Person of Christ by the union of his Divine and Humane Nature may be said to be either God or Man so that which is made up of the Sacramental Element and the thing of the Sacrament may by that union of theirs be in like manner affirm'd to be either the one or the other without any kind of impropriety or figure Consequently whereto as our Saviour call'd this Compound thing by the Name of his Body and Blood so St. Paul might as well give it the Title of Bread or Wine where he speaks so often of its being eaten or drunken by both the worthy and unworthy partakers of it Now what is there in the letter of the words This is my Body and This is my Blood to found such a Doctrine on What is there in them that they themselves can think of any moment to inferr it Nothing for ought that I can discern but the Neuter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Hoc and which because it agrees not in Gender with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Bread must be taken not adjectively but substantively and consequently for that complexum quid or compound thing which they advance But if the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Hoc being of the Neuter Gender do not hinder its referring to the Bread If it be so far from being any impropriety in construction when so referr'd that it is agreeable to the use of the best Authors both in Greek and Latin Lastly if the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Hoc may as well be rendred This thing meaning the Bread before spoken of as this Compound of the Sacrament and the thing of the Sacrament as hath been heretofore (m) Part 3. declar'd at large Then is all this Presence and Union without any kind of foundation in the Text and they must either believe as we do that Christ meant no more by This is my Body and Blood than This is the Sacrament thereof Or that that Bread and Wine which he gave to his Disciples is by his Almighty Power transubstantiated into his very Body and Blood Or that his Body and Blood are in the Sacrament but after what manner they are utterly
ignorant and are not curious to enquire and much less of Courage enough to determine For as for whatever else they advance upon this Head it is either founded upon this supposed Union or tends only to shew that there is a real and substantial Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Sacrament and which because I have already sufficiently consider'd I think it not worth the while to speak again unto And I shall only add that as it doth not appear that our Saviour meant any compound thing by that which he affirm'd to be his Body and much less such a compound thing as answers to that which ariseth from the Union of the two Natures in Christ without which they themselves confess that it could not be affirmed to be Christ's Body So St. Luke and St. Paul give this great presumption against it that when they come to speak of the Cup they do not set the simple word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or This to express the Subject of this great Predication but add 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Cup to it For beside that that makes it yet more probable that they meant no other by it than that Cup which they before affirm our Saviour to have taken and which to be sure did not then contain that compound thing which the Lutherans advance St. Paul where he intreats of the end of Mens drinking of it opposeth this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or This Bread and so offers a yet greater presumption against our understanding it of any other PART IX Of the foundation of that relation which is between the outward and inward parts of the Lord's Supper The Contents The foundation of that relation which is between the outward and inward parts of this Sacrament shewn from some former Discourses to be the Institution of Christ not so much as delivered by him as applied to those Elements that are to put it on by the Minister's executing the Commands of it and by Christ's fulfilling the Promises thereof What is the foundation of this relation on the part of the former the subject of the present Enquiry and his pronouncing the words Hoc est corpus meum and Hic est calix c. shewn not to be it from the insufficiency of those grounds on which it is built What is urg'd in the behalf of those words more particularly considered and evidence made that as there wants not in the Prayers and Praises of the Communion-Office that which may tend to the founding of this Relation so that the words Hoc est corpus meum c. neither now have nor when Christ himself used them had in them the power of producing it What the true foundation of this relation is or what that is which consecrates those Elements which are to put it on endeavour'd to be made out from some former Discourses And those Elements accordingly considered either as being to become a Sign of Christ's Body and Blood or as being to become also a Means of Communicating that Body and Blood to us and a Pledge to assure us thereof The former of these relations brought about by a declaration of those Purposes for which the Elements are intended whether in the words of the Institution or any other The latter by Thanksgiving and Prayer The usefulness of this Resolution to compromise the Quarrels that have arisen in this Argument upon occasion of what the Antients have said on the one hand for attributing the Power of Consecration to the Prayers and Thanksgivings of the Priest and on the other hand to the words of the Institution Those Quarrels being easily to be accommodated by attributing that Power to the Institution rather as applied than as delivered and as applied also by Prayer and Thanksgiving more than by the rehearsal of it IV. HAving thus given an account of the outward Part or Sign of the Lord's Supper of the inward Part or thing signified by it and of the Relation that is between them My proposed Method obligeth me to enquire What is the Foundation of that Relation or that I may speak more agreeably to the Language of the Church What that is which consecrates the Bread and Wine of it and makes them become the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood Now though that hath in a great measure been satisfied already and so may seem less necessary to be consider'd a second time Yet because what I have said upon it lies dispersedly in several Discourses and will therefore require more pains to put it together than will be fit for me to impose upon my Reader And because too many things may and must be added to it to give the World a more distinct knowledge of this Affair I shall though so much the more briefly repeat what hath been elsewhere said and add farther light and strength to it In the general I observe from what I have elsewhere * Expl. of the Sacr. in Gen. Part 2 3. discours'd that the Foundation of that relation which is between the outward and inward part of the present Sacrament is the Institution of Christ not as delivered by him For so it hath no more influence upon the Bread and Wine of the Lord's Supper than upon those of our ordinary Repasts but as applied to those particular Elements that are to put on the relation of a Sacrament I observe farther that the Institution of Christ consisting of Commands and Promises to make it effectual to the producing of this Sacramental relation in the Elements it must be applied to them by a due observation of those Commands and by a like Completion of its Promises The Consequent whereof will be thirdly that it must be applied to them on the one hand by the Stewards of this Mystery as to whom belongs the execution of its Commands and on the other by Christ himself as to whom alone belongs the Completion of the other That though that application which is to be made by Christ is no doubt of the most Efficacy toward the producing of this Sacramental Relation and in strictness of speech the only one which can make those Elements the Sacrament of Christ's Body and Blood Yet that that application which is to be made by the Stewards of this Mystery is in order of Nature before it neither can Men expect that Christ should convert those Elements into a Sacrament unless what he enjoins concerning them be first observed by the other I observe lastly that when question is made in this particular what is the Foundation of this Sacramental Relation or that I may speak more agreeably to the Language of the Church what that is which consecrates the Sacramental Elements The meaning thereof is what is the Foundation of that relation on the part of the Stewards of this Mystery and what is requir'd of them to dispose Christ to perform his part in this Affair and cause those Elements which in themselves are
that Body and Blood to us and a Pledge to assure us thereof If we consider the Sacramental Elements as being to become a Sign of Christ's crucified Body and Blood and accordingly to represent them both to our own Minds and those of others So it cannot but be thought necessary to declare whether by the words of the Institution or others for what purposes they are design'd and what they were intended to represent For those Elements (e) Expl. of the Sacr. in Gen. Part 2. being not so clear a representation of the things intended by them as by their own force to suggest them to the Minds of those for whom they were intended Being much less so clear a representation of them as to invite those to reflect upon them who are either slow of understanding or otherwise indisposed to contemplate them such as are the generality of Men It cannot but be thought necessary even upon that account to call in the assistance of such words as may declare to those that are concern'd for what ends and purposes they were appointed Otherwise Men may either look upon the whole of that Sacrament as a purely civil Action or if the Person that administreth it and other such like Circumstances prompt them to conceive of it as a religious one yet fancy to themselves such ends and purposes as are either different from or contrary to the due intendment of it And though it be true that in that Eucharist which our Saviour celebrated with his Disciples there appears no such declaration of the ends of Christ in it till he comes to admonish them to take what he gave as his Body and Blood which supposeth them to have been made so before Yet as it is clear from thence that he thought such a declaration to be necessary to manifest his ends in it so it is no way unlikely but rather highly probable that he interlaid that Thanksgiving and Prayer wherewith he is said to have bless'd the Elements of this Sacrament with a declaration of those ends for which they were designed by him It appearing not otherwise how that Thanksgiving and Prayer could have fitted the matter in hand or stirred up the Minds of his Disciples to intend it with that devotion which the importance thereof requir'd On the other side if we consider the Sacramental Elements as being to become a Means of communicating that Body and Blood to us and which is but consequent thereto a Pledge to assure us thereof So it is as little to be doubted but that it must be brought about by Thanksgiving to God on the one hand for giving him to die whose crucified Body and Blood this Sacrament was intended to convey and by Prayer to him on the other to make those Elements become the Communion of them The former because Thanksgiving appears to have been the Means by which our Saviour blessed them and moreover the principal design of this Sacrament toward God and which therefore unless we comply with we cannot reasonably hope for the Benefits of The latter because as hath been elsewhere shewn Prayer was a part of that Thanksgiving and because it is undoubtedly the general Means appointed by Christ for the obtaining of all Benefits whatsoever Which things how momentous soever I have thus lightly passed over because I have spoken to them sufficiently elsewhere and particularly where I intreated of the Institution of this Sacrament and of that Thanksgiving by which our Saviour is affirmed to have bless'd it That which in my opinion ought more especially to be considered is the usefulness of the former Resolution to compromise those Quarrels which have for some time been raised in this Argument For whilst some contend earnestly for Consecration by Thanksgiving and Prayer as they have reason enough to do upon the account of our Saviour's being affirmed to consecrate by it and of Justin Martyr Origen and several others representing the Elements of this Sacrament as becoming what they were intended by the force of those Thanksgivings and Prayers which were made over them And whilst others again contend as earnestly that they are made such by the words of the Institution and alledge with the same heat Irenaeus his affirming (f) Adv. haeres li. 5. cap. 2. the mixt Cup and broken Bread to become the Eucharist of Christ's Body and Blood by receiving the Word of God and St. Augustine's more celebrated saying that let the Word come to the Element and it becomes a Sacrament They say things which will be easily made to agree with each other if they who alledge them will but hear one another speak For it is the word of the Institution applied as that Institution directs which consecrates the Elements into those several relations which they assume And it is the same word of Institution declar'd which contributes more particularly to the making of those Elements become a Sign of Christ's Body and Blood But then as it is appli'd by Thanksgiving and Prayer because they are a part of its Commands as well as by a declaration of the whole So that Thanksgiving and Prayer contribute to those relations which do most ennoble them even those by which the Elements become the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood and a Pledge to assure us thereof Not by any force which is in the Letters and Syllables thereof as Aquinas makes Hoc est corpus meum and Hic est Calix sanguinis mei to do but by the force of that Institution which prescribes them and by their natural aptitude to dispose God to whom alone such great Effects are to be ascrib'd to give the Elements of this Sacrament those most excellent relations and efficacy PART X. Of the right Administration of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper The Contents Entrance made with enquiring How this Sacrament ought to be administred and therein again whether that Bread wherewith it is celebrated ought to be broken and whether he who administers this Sacrament is obliged by the words of the Institution or otherwise to make an offering unto God of Christ's Body and Blood as well as make a tender of the Sacrament thereof to Men. That the Bread of the Sacrament ought to be broken as that too for the better representation of the breaking of Christ's Body asserted against the Lutherans and their Arguments against it produc'd and answered Whether he who administers this Sacrament is obliged by the words of the Institution or otherwise to make an offering to God of Christ's Body and Blood in the next place enquir'd into and after a declaration of the Doctrine of the Council of Trent in this Affair consideration had of those grounds upon which the Fathers of that Council establish it The words Do this in remembrance of me more particularly animadverted upon and shewn not to denote such an Offering whether they be consider'd as referring to the several things before spoken of and particularly to what Christ himself had done or enjoyn'd the Apostles
that Doctrine savours at all of Popery because the signification we give to the breaking of the Bread is of a quite different nature from what the Papists suggest and indeed no other than the Institution it self offers to us For we no more than the Lutherans believe that the Host ought to be broken into just three parts or for the reasons that are given by them for it so I see as little how our Doctrine ministers to Socinianism even in the point that is now before us Because though we declare the breaking of the Bread to have been intended for a representation of our Saviour's crucified Body yet we do not believe as they do that that was the sole intendment of that and other the usances of the present Sacrament but that as Christ meant we should shew forth by them what he suffered in his Body so we should also thereby be made partakers of it and of the Benefits thereof 2. But not any longer to insist upon the breaking of the Bread because as I suppose sufficiently clear'd Let us go on to enquire because a Question of far greater moment whether he who administers this Sacrament is oblig'd by the words of the Institution or otherwise to make an Offering to God of Christ's Body and Blood as well as to make a tender of the Sacrament thereof to Men The Council of Trent as is well known avowing that to be the importance of the words Do this in remembrance of me and that the Apostles were by the same words appointed Priests to offer them For my more advantageous resolution whereof I will shew 1. What they who advance this Offering declare concerning it 2. The vanity of those Grounds upon which it is built and 3. Oppose proper Arguments to it 1. That which the Council of Trent teacheth concerning this pretended Offering is that it hath for the matter of it the Body and Blood of Christ (h) Sess 22. cap. 1 2. Can. 3. or rather Christ himself under the Species of Bread and Wine That the Offering which is made of it is no simple tender of it to the Father but the offering of it up by way of a Sacrifice and accordingly he himself sacrificed or slain in it but after an unbloody manner That this Sacrifice is not only an Eucharistical or Commemorative Sacrifice but a truly propitiatory one for quick and dead and by which God is so far appeas'd as to grant Pardon and Grace to the one and a Refrigerium to the other 2. How well these things agree either with one another or with that Sacrifice which Christ made of himself upon the Cross shall then be considered when I come to oppose proper Arguments to it My present Business shall be to examine the Grounds upon which it is built and shew the vanity thereof Where again I will insist upon no other Grounds than what the same Council of Trent offers for it and which therefore those of the Roman Communion must think themselves obliged either to stand or fall by Now that which the Council of Trent principally founds it self upon in this Affair is on the one hand the conversion of the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament into the Body and Blood of Christ as without which there could be no Pretence for the offering of them up under the Species of the other And on the other hand those known words of Christ to his Apostles and their Successors Do this in remembrance of me These words as that Council tells us having been always understood and declar'd by the Catholick Church as a Command of Christ to them to offer up his Body and Blood But as enough hath been said already (i) Part 7. to shew the unsoundness of the former of these grounds and that therefore no just foundation of the offering of Christ's Body and Blood in the present Sacrament So we shall find there is as little solidity in that supposed Command of Christ to his Apostles and their Successors in the words Do this in remembrance of me For neither can those words be fairly drawn to signifie the offering up of Christ's Body and Blood neither doth it appear whatever is pretended that the Catholick Church hath had that understanding of them That the words themselves cannot be fairly drawn to signifie the offering up of Christ's Body and Blood will appear if we consider them either as referring to the several things before spoken of and particularly to what he himself had done or enjoined them to do or as referring only to that Body and Blood which immediately precede them and in which sense they are suppos'd to signifie the sacrificing or offering of them If we consider the words Do this in remembrance of me as referring to the several things before spoken of even those which Christ himself had done or enjoined them to do So there is no appearance of their being a Command to the Apostles or their Successors to offer up his Body and Blood unless there had been any precedent mention of Christ's offering them up himself or any kind of intimation of his enjoining them to do it The latter of which two as it is not to by affirm'd by those who make the words Do this in remembrance of me to be those which constituted both the Sacrifice and the offerers of it So I see as little reason for the affirming of the former how confidently soever the Church of Rome advanceth it For what mention can we expect for instance of Christ's offering up his Body under the Species of Bread when till he had spoken the words This is my Body which was not till he had done all appertaining to that Element there was no such thing under the Species of Bread for Christ to offer up because not to be till those words had pass'd upon it But it may be there is more force in the words Do this as referring to that Body and Blood which immediately precede them in which sense they are suppos'd to signifie the sacrificing or offering of them And so no doubt there is or they will be found to have little force in them But what if we should say first that there is as little appearance of their referring to the words Body and Blood as what St. Paul subjoineth to them and the very Canon of the Mass perswades For St. Paul inferring upon those words that as oft as they ate that Bread and drank that Cup they did shew forth the Lord's death till he came And again that whosoever should eat that Bread and drink that Cup of the Lord unworthily should be guilty of the Body and Blood of the Lord He doth not obscurely intimate that when our Saviour said with relation to each Element Do this in remembrance of me his meaning was that they should do what he had before enjoin'd them concerning each in remembrance of himself and particularly that they should eat and drink them with that design Which they of all Men
ought not to refuse who are taught by the Canon of the Mass to look upon the words Hoc est enim corpus meum and Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei for so the Roman Missal expresseth them as a Reason of what is before enjoin'd and particularly of the Disciples eating and drinking the things given to them For if those very words referr'd to what was before enjoyn'd and particularly to their eating and drinking the things given to them The words Do this in remembrance of me ought in reason to referr to the same eating and drinking and no otherwise to the Body and Blood of Christ than as that was an inducement to them to do what they did in remembrance of Him and of his Death But let us suppose however because some of the Roman Communion will have it so that the words Do this c. referr to the Body and Blood of Christ and that it must therefore be somewhat about those that this Precept of Christ must be thought to enjoin Yet how doth it appear which is the only thing that can advantage them that we are to understand thereby Sacrifice or make an Offering of them For though I grant that if the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be considered with respect to Christ's Body and Blood it must have another sense than we are wont to put upon it Yet why should it not signifie make as well as sacrifice especially when that sense is both the most natural and the most obvious one For so it will yet more agree with the opinion these Men have of their converting the Bread and Wine of the Sacrament into the Body and Blood of Christ and accordingly producing that Body and Blood out of them And indeed as one would think that they who give the Priest the priviledge of making his God should be willing to understand the words in that sense because setting those aside there is nothing else from whence that Power can be colourably deduc'd So one would think too that they should secure to themselves that Power before they pretend to offer him as without which there can be no place for it But let that Notion also how natural soever even in their own opinion be laid aside with the rest if it be only to make way for that other of sacrificing or offering Yet how will it appear that this latter one ought to have place here or if it hath that it denotes such a sacrificing or offering as they advance For though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 agreeably to the notion of the Hebrew word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 doth sometime signifie to sacrifice or offer for so it doth Lev. 15 15-30 and in other places according to the Septuagint Version * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Yet as even there it comes to have that sense rather from the matter intreated of than from any natural signification of the word So there is nothing in the present Argument to determine it to that sense or oblige us to such an understanding of it Though if that also should be allow'd which yet there is not the least necessity of doing yet will not the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 reach that Sacrifice which is intended to be superstructed upon them Because he who commands Men to sacrifice or offer in remembrance of himself doth rather enjoin a Commemorative than Expiatory one and consequently not that Sacrifice which is intended So little is there in the words themselves how favourably soever consider'd to oblige us to understand them of such an Offering as the Church of Rome advanceth And we shall find them to signifie as little though we take in the sense of the Catholick Church upon them how conformable soever the Council of Trent affirms it to be unto its own Because though the Antients did all agree upon a Sacrifice and which is more look'd upon those words as either directly or indirectly obliging to the offering of it yet as hath been elsewhere (k) Part 2. shewn they advanc'd other kind of Sacrifices than what the Church of Rome now doth and consequently cannot be suppos'd to give any countenance to it And I shall only add that though Justin Martyr (l) Dial. cum Tryph. p. 259 c. represented that Offering of fine Flour which was offer'd for those that were cleansed from the Leprosie as a Type of the Bread of the Eucharist Though he moreover appli'd the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to that Bread and if any of the Fathers therefore did affirm'd Christ to command us to make or offer that Bread to God Yet he adds that he commanded us to do so in remembrance of that Passion which he suffered for those that were cleansed in their Souls And again that we might at the same time give thanks to God for his having made the World and all things in it for the sake of Man and for his having delivered us by Christ from that wickedness in which we sometime were and dissolv'd all noxious Principalities and Powers Which shews him not to have thought in the least of our being commanded to offer Christ's Body and Blood under the Species of Bread or indeed of any other Sacrifice than a Commemorative or Eucharistical one The principal Argument of the Tridentine Fathers being thus discharg'd and the Sacrifice of the Mass so far forth depriv'd of its support We shall the less need to concern our selves about those which are of an inferiour rank and in truth rather Assistants to the former Argument than any proper proofs of the Sacrifice it self For what boots it to alledge that our Saviour's Priesthood like that of Melchizedek being not to be extinguished by death we are in reason to presume that upon his departure hence he appointed his Apostles and their Successors to offer up continually that Offering which Melchizedek first and after him our Saviour offer'd For beside that there is no appearance of Melchizedek's offering up Bread and Wine and we therefore not to argue from the Bread and Wine which he brought forth that our Melchizedek was either to offer or appoint any such Sacrifice Our Melchizedek was to abide for ever as well as his Priesthood yea he was to abide in his Priesthood for ever as well as in his Person Witness not only the Psalmist's affirming that he was to be a Priest for ever but St. Paul's affirming also that (m) Heb. 7.23 24. whereas the Aaronical Priests were of necessity to pass over their Priesthood from one to another because no one of them could continue by reason of Death our Melchizedekian Priest because he was to abide for ever was invested with an unchangeable Priesthood and such as should not pass away from him For what was this but to say that he should keep his Priesthood in his own Person and should not therefore either need or be in a capacity to appoint other Priests in his room
or furnish them with any Sacrifice to employ them There is as little force if it be duly considered in what the same Fathers alledge from the Prophet Malachi (n) Mal. 1.11 where it is said that from the rising up of the Sun unto the going down of the same God's Name should be great among the Gentiles and that in every place Incense should be offered unto his Name and a pure Offering For though it be true that the Antients appli'd this Text to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper and thought that to be the pure Offering which was to be offer'd up unto God Yet as they who did so appli'd it rather to the Sign than to the thing signifi'd for so Justin Martyr Irenaeus and Origen apparently do but however represented it as an Eucharistical or Commemorative Oblation and not as an Expiatory one So they who follow the Antients too nearly will find themselves oblig'd by the present words to offer up Incense unto God as well as that Oblation whereof they speak For by the same reason that a strict and proper and material Oblation is to be understood by the same reason a true and proper Incense is to be understood also because equally foretold by the Prophet and coupled with the other It is enough to salve the Prophecy that God should have his publick Worship among the Gentiles and a Service as notorious and more acceptable than the Jews Incense and Oblations were And he that makes the Prophecy to import any thing more may as well argue from it the continuance of the Jewish Service among the Gentiles because if we take the Prophecy in the Letter it cannot be thought to denote any thing else than the offering of the same Incense and Oblations that the then Jews did though more free from impurity than theirs If the Prophecy had a more particular relation to the Eucharist as it should seem by the Comments of the Antients that it had I should think it was rather because it was an eminent part of the Christian Service and because of those Prayers and Thanksgivings which attended it than for any formal Oblation of the Signs of it or of that Body and Blood of Christ which it was signified by them Which Justin Martyr though elsewhere (o) Dial. cum Tryph. p. 260. seeming to referr it to the very Oblation of the Bread and the Cup of the Eucharist gives no small countenance to when in answer to Trypho the Jew (p) Ib. p. 345. who it seems interpreted this Prophecy of the Prayers of the Jews in their dispersion among the Gentiles he saith that such Prayers and Thanksgivings as were made by worthy Men were acknowledg'd by him also to be the only perfect Sacrifices and such as were well-pleasing unto God And that these were the only things which the Christians had received to do even in the remembrance of their both dry and liquid Food wherein also is commemorated that Passion which the Son of God suffered by himself as our Mede hath well mended that latter Clause of the words For if Justin Martyr thought as he professeth to do that Prayers and Thanksgivings were the only perfect and acceptable Sacrifices and that they too were the only things which the Christians had received to do or offer in the Eucharist it self Then did not the present Prophecy either in his or other Christians opinion referr more particularly to the Eucharist upon the account of any proper Oblation of the Signâ— of it and much less upon the account of any propitiatory Sacrifice that was there made of the Body and Blood of Christ but upon the account of those Sacrifices of Praise and Thanksgiving which attended it and were indeed the principal part of that Service The Council of Trent therefore not daring to trust too much to this Prophecy of Malachi goes on to suggest that the Sacrifice which it advanceth is not obscurely intimated by St. Paul where he tells his Corinthians (q) 1 Cor. 10.21 that they who are polluted by partaking of the table of Devils cannot be partakers of the Table of the Lord understanding in both places by the word Table an Altar And consequently because every Altar must have its Victime that the Table of which the Christians partook had its Victime also even that Body and Blood of Christ which they professed to partake of and which he himself had before affirm'd the Bread and Cup of the Eucharist to be the Communion of It is very well said by the Council that the Sacrifice whereof it intreats is intimated by those words of St. Paul For to be sure they are no plain and express declarations of it But that it is not obscurely intimated by those words of his is a thing which we can by no means grant because we cannot grant that which is the foundation of their Argument even that St. Paul by Table understood an Altar For beside that it is not easie to be thought that even the Heathen Deities did so far forget the place they had usurp'd as to admit their Worshippers to their own proper Tables for so I take the Altars of those Deities to have been but only to have allow'd of their receiving by the hands of their Priests some Portions from their Altars and eating of them at Tables purposely prepared for them It is manifest by the description which Virgil (r) Aeneid li. 8. v. 103 c. v. 172 gives us of this Affair where he intreats of the Sacrifice of Hercules that though the Gentiles partook of those Meats which were offer'd to their Idols and might so far forth also be said to partake with their Altars and them yet they did not eat of them at the Altars of their Idols but on Tables prepared for them for that purpose Which suppos'd neither St. Paul's Table of Devils nor his Table of the Lord will be found to be Altars and no Argument therefore to be made from thence that that Table of the Lord imports the offering up of that Lord upon it or that we are under any Obligation to make such an Offering of him The utmost that can with reason be inferr'd from St. Paul's arguing from the one to the other Table is that as both of them presuppose a Victime or Sacrifice so they in like manner suppose our Victime or Sacrifice to be exhibited on that Table which we Christians are to partake of Which though it may be no proof of the offering up of Christ's Body and Blood upon it yet may seem to be some proof of the Presence of that very Body and Blood upon it which Christ sometime offer'd upon the Altar of the Cross But as whosoever shall consider that it was only a part of the Victime that was brought from the Idols Altar to the Table of his Worshippers will find himself obliged to confess either that there is no exact similitude between the Devils Tables and ours or that we no more than
same Justin Martyr (a) Apol. 2. p. 98. receive these things as common Bread and common Drink But as Jesus Christ our Saviour being incarnate by the Word of God took both Flesh and Blood for our Salvation so also we have been taught that that Meat which is made Eucharistical by the Prayers of that Word which came from him and by which our Flesh and Blood are nourished through the conversion thereof into them is the Flesh and Blood of Jesus Christ incarnate And that they had not a less venerable esteem for the same Sacramental Elements in the succeeding times may appear from Tertullian's (b) Despectac cap. 25. giving them the title of Sanctum or the Holy thing and from the Bishop or Priest's delivering them with these words (c) Tert. ib. cum notis Rigalt The Body of Christ or The Blood of Christ and the Peoples receiving them with an Amen or So be it (d) Iterum Euseb Eccles Hist li. 6. cap. 43. cum notis Valesii So praying that what was intended by Christ and accordingly delivered by his Minister as the Communion of Christ's Body and Blood might prove such effectually to them For who can think after all this unless there were some presumption of their receiving the Elements in any other posture but that they receiv'd them in such a one as was suitable to such thoughts and such practices and not in one which hath no affinity at all with them Especially if there appear any express proof near those times of their receiving them in a posture of Adoration and particularly in the posture of standing Which that there is is evident from an Epistle of Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria to Xystus Bishop of Rome (e) Euseb Eccl. Hist l. 7. cap. 9. For speaking therein of one who had been long admitted among the Faithful but beginning to doubt of the truth of his Baptism among Hereticks was importunate with him to Baptize him anew he tells Xystus that he for his part did not dare to do it and therefore answer'd the Person That that long Communion which he had in the Church suffic'd him for that Purpose For how could he have the confidence to renew him again who had oftentimes heard the Service of the Eucharist and with the rest of the Congregation answer'd Amen to it who had stood by the Table and stretched out his hands to receive the holy Food in fine who had receiv'd that holy Food and for a long time been partaker of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ But beside that the Antients receiv'd in a posture of Adoration and they therefore who represent sitting as the only allowable one so far forth guilty of singularity It will be hard to find any among the Moderns who do not receive in a posture of Adoration or at least do not believe it to be lawful which is a farther proof of the others singularity For the Bohemian Churches who were the first that reform'd from Popery in those poor remains of them that yet continue receive kneeling (f) Durel View of the Gov. and publ Worsh c. Sect. 1. Par. 57. to this day and which is more when they join'd with those of Polonia Major and Lithuania agreed unanimously to forbid the receiving of the Sacrament sitting as a Custom which was brought in by the Arrians The Reformed Churches (g) Durel Serm. of the Liturg. of France so long as they continu'd received standing and the great Men thereof as a reverend Person of our Nation (h) Hammond View of the New Direct c. informs us made a low Cringe before they took it into their hands Both French and Dutch in fine when they gave their Opinion concerning the Gesture us'd by the Bohemians did also deliver it as such That every Church ought to be left to its own liberty (i) Ham. L'Estrange Alli of Div. Offic. Cap. 7. in Annot. in this particular All which things consider'd it will appear that if they among us who advance sitting at the Sacrament be not therefore guilty of singularity yet they must be for advancing it as the only allowable one as if their Reasons were good they must be thought to do But because how singular soever this Opinion of theirs may be yet it is pretended that it hath Christ and his Disciples example on its side together with the suffrage of Reason Therefore it will be but just to examine those Pretences and see what there is of strength in them And first it is pretended that our Saviour Christ and his Disciples sat at the receiving of this Sacrament or at least us'd such a posture as was answerable to sitting among us even lying along upon Beds as the fashion of those Countries was And it is not to be denied that there is sufficient ground from the Scripture for their using that Posture at the Passover and not unlikely neither that they held it on at the Celebration of the Lord's Supper But will it therefore follow that we ought to look upon no other Posture than that or one of the same nature as allowable For beside that things which are but probable may be false and things improbable true Beside that things probable for that very reason cannot conclude the Conscience of any Man and ought much less to be made use of to conclude the Consciences of others If Christ and his Disciples practice in this particular were as certain as it is supposed to be probable yet could it not be of force to conclude ours unless there were some Command to oblige us to follow it or some cogent Reason in the Practice it self to shew the necessity thereof Because Example consider'd in it self is no Rule of humane Actions in as much as it rather shews what others have done before us than what we our selves are to do in any Affair Which is so true as to that very Example which we have now before us that they who insist upon it in the posture of receiving do yet without any hesitancy depart from it in other Circumstances and such too as are more certain than the posture of receiving is For they no more than we think themselves oblig'd to receive either in the Evening or in an upper Room or in unleavened Bread all which Christ and his Disciples must be acknowledg'd to have done in that Supper which he celebrated with them But therefore as if they will have this Example of Christ and his Disciples to be obligatory they must find out some Command obliging us to follow it or some cogent Reason in the practice of it self to shew the necessity thereof So if we stay till that be done we may stay long enough because there is no just Pretence for the one or the other of them For what shadow is there for instance of any Command to follow Christ or his Disciples Example in this as there is for the taking of the Sacramental Elements and eating
verba sint ducta credamusque quia fiat quod dictum est appellatam fidem represent it as having its name from fit quod dicitur yet as he doth even there intimate it to be a harsh etymology and rather a piece of Stoical confidence than a well grounded conjecture So he himself elsewhere †Fides autem ut habeatur duabus rebus effici potest si existimabimur adepti conjunctam cum justitiâ prudentiam Nam iis fidem habemus quos plus intelligere quam nos arbitramur Justis autem fidis hominibus id est viris bonis ita fides habetur ut nulla sit in his fraudis injuriaeque suspicio De Offic. 2. useth the word Fides for that trust we repose in another upon the account of his wisdom and justice For ought therefore that doth as yet appear there is not any reason to believe but that Christianity had a respect in it's words to the Antient signification of them And consequently but that it had so in the use of the word Sacrament and intended it a like signification with that which it before had and was now very prevalent in the world But beside the footing that signification of it had gotten and by which therefore we may reasonably imagine that the first Christians guided themselves in the use of the same word in Christianity it is as certain that the same persons led thereto by the language of the Scripture did both conceive of and represent the life and institution of a Christian under the notion of a Military one For if so it is yet more reasonable to think that they made use of their Sacrament to express some of their own Institutions by Now that the first Christians led thereto by the language of the Scripture did both conceive of and represent the Christian state as a Military one will soon appear if we look either into those Scriptures or the Antient Writers Witness for the former St. Paul's speaking in one (k) 1 Cor. 9.26 place of his fighting as one that did not beat the air and in another (l) 2 Tim. 4.7 of his having fought a good fight his calling upon Timothy in a third (m) 1 Tim. 6.12 to fight the good fight of Faith as in fine upon the generality of Christians (n) Eph. 6.11 c. to prepare themselves for that fight by putting on the whole Armour of God which therefore he doth there reckon up and prompts them to buckle on For these and other expressions of the like nature show plainly enough that even the Penmen of the New Testament had that opinion of a Christian State and that accordingly they represented it under the notion of a military one The like evidence there is of their opinion of it who took upon them to hand down that doctrine which they receiv'd from the other Witness Tertullian's representing the Christians in general as the Militia of God (o) De orat c. 14. and affirming the Stations that were in use among them to have had their original from the Military ones His representing that Souldier who refused to put on his Crown as more the Souldier of God (p) De coronâ c. 1. than of the Emperor His afterwards describing the same person (q) Ibid. as one clad all in red with the hope of his own blood shod with the preparation of the Gospel girt with the sharper Word of God armed Cap-a-pe out of the Apostle and in a short time to be crowned with the Crown of Martyrdom and to receive the donative of Christ in prison For what are these but pregnant proofs of the likeness they conceived between a Christian and a Military state and consequently that in agreement thereto they spake of their own Sacraments in the same Military strain Though if neither that will suffice we have their own express applications of the word to warrant us and accordingly either making the Sacraments a badge of their military state or arguing from mens taking upon them the Sacraments of Christ's warfare the unlawfulness of obliging themselves by a humane one For agreeably to the former of these we find the fore-quoted Tertullian affirming * Vocati sumus ad militiam Dei vivi jam tunc cum in Sacramenti verba respondimus Ad Martyr c. 3. that we were called even then to the Militia of God when we answered to the words of the Sacrament meaning that of Baptism As Arnobius yet more plainly †Adv. Gentes li. 2. Quod ab dominis se servi cruciatibus affici quibus statuerunt malunt solvi conjuges Matrimoniis exhaeredari à parentibus liberos quam fidem numpere Christianam salutaris militiae Sacramenta deponere where he represents one who denies the Faith as one who deposits the Sacraments of the saving Militia of God For what was this but to say that in respect to that warfare which Christianity commands us to take up they call'd the principal institutions of it by the name of Sacraments and consequently that they made use of the word in a sense analogous to that in which it had been formerly taken On the other side when the forementioned Tertullian * De Coronâ c. 11. Etenim ut ipsam causam coronae militaris aggrediar puto prius conquirendum an in totum Christianis militia conveniat Quale est alioquin de accidentibus retractare cum à praecedentibus culpa sit Credimusne humanum Sacramentum divino superinduci licere in alium Dominum respondere post Christum where he goes about to prove the unlawfulness of a Christians taking upon him a Military life demands whether any man can think it lawful to superinduce a humane or Military Sacrament upon a divine one and to answer to another Master after Christ What other can he be thought to mean than that the divine and humane Sacraments were of one and the same general nature that the divine Sacraments had therefore the name of the humane ones impos'd upon them and so the word Sacrament of like signification in them both The only thing to be farther enquired into is how far this likeness of signification may be supposed to prevail in the divine or Christian intendment of it And here in the first place it is easie to observe that the word Sacrament in the Christian intendment of it did equally imply the thing to which it was attributed to lay an Obligation upon him that took it to intend those things to which it related For besides that otherwise it could have had little affinity with the Military Sacrament the principal design whereof was to lay an Obligation upon those that took it The first time we find any mention made of a Christian Sacrament we find mention also made †Plin. Epist li. 10. ep 97. of the Christians obliging themselves by it to the doing of those things that are there remembred It is no less easie to see secondly
for the former their representing Baptism as the laver (k) Tit. 3.5 of Regeneration which is a thing we must have from God (l) Joh. 3.5 and as a thing by which we must obtain forgiveness of sins (m) Act. 2.38 which is as undoubtedly (n) Expl. of the Lords Pr. forgive us c. another For the latter the same Scriptures requiring us to look upon the elements thereof as that body of Christ which was (o) Luk. 22.19 given for us and that blood which was shed for many (p) Matt. 26.28 for the forgiveness of sins For as these and the former benefits are such as manifestly come from God so they are alike manifestly represented as the consequents of the former Sacraments and a Sacrament therefore as such to be looked upon as having a relation to that which flows from God to us The only difficulty in my opinion is to shew a Sacrament to relate equally to that which passeth from us to God and imports our duty and service But besides that the Antients apprehended no such difficulty in it because giving it the title of a Sacrament in respect of that Obligation * See the prec Disc which it lays upon the Receivers of it The Scriptures have said enough concerning Baptism and the Lords Supper to confirm us in the belief of this relation of them Only because I would not too much anticipate my Discourse concerning those Sacraments and beside that may have another occasion to speak more largely to this Argument I will content my self at present with what St. Peter hath observ'd of Baptism (q) 1 Pet. 3.21 and which I have elsewhere (r) Explic. of the Prel Quest and Answers c. given a more particular account of For if as that Apostle insinuates and hath accordingly been more largely confirmed the stipulation or answer of a good conscience toward God be a considerable part of Baptism If it be so considerable a part of it as to give it much of that savingness which it hath Then must that Sacrament be thought because the stipulation of a good Conscience is of that nature to relate to something that must come from us as well as to those things which flow from God to us It is true indeed that our Church where it sets it self to define a Sacrament takes no notice of this object of it Whether it were through a simple inadvertency and from which our Church doth no where pretend it self to be free or which I rather think that it might give so much the more particular an account of that other and more considerable object of it even that inward and Spiritual Grace which it was intended to signifie and exhibit and assure For that our Church did not wholly forget this second object of a Sacrament even that duty and service of ours which it doth equally signifie and prompt us to declare is evident from its before minding the Catechumen of his Baptismal vow (ſ) Prelim. Quest and Answ of the Cat. and from the declaration it elsewhere (t) Office of Publ. Bapt. makes that they who are to be baptized must also for their parts promise the renouncing of the Devil and his works and both Faith and Piety toward God That as it shews her to have looked upon Baptism as a federals rite or ceremony so that she equally believed it to relate to our duty and service as well as to those divine benefits we receive from the Author of it Let it remain therefore for an undoubted truth and the acknowledged Doctrine of our Church that a Sacrament relates as well to what is to pass from us to God as to what is to come from God to us and that accordingly it may be so far forth defined such an outward and visible sign whereby we make a declaration of our piety toward God as Mr. Calvin (u) Instit li. 4. c. 14. §. 1. hath very well observed I may not forget to add for the farther clearing of this head that as a Sacrament relates first and chiefly to that which passeth from God to us so we are to conceive of that to which it so relates under the notion of a Grace given unto us yea of an inward and spiritual one That we ought to conceive of it under the notion of a grace given unto us is evident from those Texts which I but now made use of to shew that a Sacrament relates to that which passeth from God to us For instancing in such things as have the nature of benefits and so far forth therefore are to be looked upon as Graces or Favours instancing moreover in such benefits as are manifestly the issues of the Divine Goodness yea which the Scripture expresly affirms to be given to us by him for so it doth as to that (w) Luk. 22.19 Body of Christ which is the foundation of them all they must consequently oblige us to conceive of that to which a Sacrament relates as a Grace given unto us But neither will there be less evidence from thence if those Texts be well considered that that Grace to which a Sacrament relates is an inward and Spiritual one For as our Church means no other by an inward and Spiritual Grace than that which conduceth in an especial manner to the welfare of our inward man or Spirit as is evident from its making the Body and Blood of Christ the inward and Spiritual Grace of the Lords Supper and which it cannot be in any other sense than that it hath such an effect upon us so the Texts before alledged attribute such Graces to the Sacraments as are in that sense at least inward and Spiritual ones Witness their attributing to them the Graces of regeneration and forgiveness which are as it were the formal causes of our welfare and the grace of Christs Body and Blood which is the meritorious cause thereof and under God and by his acceptation in the place of an Efficient also I observe farther that as a Sacrament relates to such things as have the nature of divine Graces or humane duties so those graces and duties being parts of the New Covenant and receiving all their force from it a Sacrament must consequently relate to that New Covenant to which they do belong and from which they receive all their force Of which yet if there remain any doubt it will not be difficult to clear it from what the Scripture assures us concerning Baptism and the Lords Supper St. Peter (x) 1 Pet. 3.21 representing the former under the notion of a Stipulation or Contract as our Saviour the Cup of the other (y) Luk. 22.20 Matt. 26.28 as the New Covenant in his Blood for the remission of those sins for which it was shed For that that is in truth the meaning of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not as we usually render it the New Testament in it is not only evident from the word 〈◊〉
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being alway so used by the Greek Translatours of the Old Testament and whom the Writers of the New Testament generally follow but from the opposition which the Scriptures of both Testaments (z) Jer. 3 31. c. Heb. 8.8 c. make between the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 even where * Heb. 9 15-18 there is the greatest appearance of its being to be translated a Testament For the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 being certainly a Covenant and accordingly expressed by the Hebrews by the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is never used in any other sense it is but reasonable to believe that that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is opposed to it is of the same nature Because as it hath the same word to express it and is therefore in reason to be looked upon as so far the same so it would otherwise be different from the Old as to its general nature as well as particular quality which the sole mention of its newness forbids us to believe Oppositions like exceptions from a general rule supposing an identity there where no opposition is taken notice of And indeed though the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may seem in one place to require a different rendering even there †Heb. 9.17 where mention is made of its being of no force till he by whom it was made was dead Yet as even that did not hinder our Translatours from rendering it a Covenant both in the foregoing * Heb. 8.9 c. and following (a) Heb. 10.29 Chapters so that place will not only admit of the notion of a Covenant but be found all things considered to require it of us For with what sense first of all can our Saviour be said to be the Mediatour of the New (b) Heb. 9.15 Testament upon the sense of which expression the following periods do depend And for this cause he is the Mediator of the New Testament that by means of death for the redemption of the Transgressions that were under the first Testament they which are called might receive the promise of an eternal inheritance For shall we say that Christ may be stiled the Mediator of the New Testament because interposing himself between two persons that concurr to the making of it But as a Testament is the Act of one and not of more and therefore admitteth not of any such mediation so the New Testament is supposed to be the Act of Christ and he therefore rather the Maker than the Mediatour of it Shall we then say that Christ is the Mediator of the New Testament because interposing between the maker of that Testament and those who are the Legatees in it But by this means God the Father shall become the Testator which if death be required to make him such he can by no means be Shall we say lastly that Christ may be looked upon as a Mediator of the New Testament because by means of that Testament of his taking up the difference between God and Man But that is rather to make him a Mediator by a Testament than of one which Christ is here affirmed to be So difficult will it be found to make any tolerable sense of those words if we understand them as our Translators prompt us of the Mediator of a Testament Whereas if we understand them of the Mediator of a Covenant the sense will be clear and plain Because as there are two parties required to the making of a Covenant and such who do for the most part need a Mediator to bring them to it so God and Man are manifestly the Parties of the New Covenant and brought to enter into it by the mediation of Christ If it be also said as it is that the Mediator of the New Covenant brings the Parties concerned to it by his death it is no more than will be found to be agreeable to the Eastern mode of making Covenants and particularly to the manner of making that Covenant which was of old between God and the Israelites For as that Covenant and indeed all the kindness that passed between them was brought about by the mediation of Sacrifices (c) Exo. 24.5 and the blood of those Sacrifices therefore stiled the blood of the Covenant (d) Exo. 24.8 so Christ by the blood (e) Col. 1.19 of his Cross brought about this New Covenant between God and us and so as the Author to the Hebrews speaks became the Mediator of it If it be said yet farther that Christ became the Mediator of the New Covenant that they who were called might receive the promise of an eternal inheritance That also will be found to be as agreeable to the notion of a Covenant as it is to that of a Testament Because as an inheritance may pass by other means beside that of a Testament so the Children of Israel came to the inheritance of the Land of Canaan by a Covenant (f) Gen. 15.7 8 18. between God and their Progenitor Abraham yea by such a Covenant as was conciliated by the mediation (g) Gen. 15.9 of a Sacrifice That therefore being the sense of those words of the Apostle and so as I think evinced to be by no contemptible proofs it will be but reasonable to give a like sense to the following ones (h) Heb. 9 16 17 18. because but a proof of the former if it may be made appear that they are capable of it Which that they are will appear from the Translation I shall now subjoyn and which if it be duly considered will be found to be no forced one For * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. where a Covenant is there must of necessity even by that necessity which arose from the Antient mode of making Covenants be the death of that Mediator that made it For a Covenant becomes firm after those Mediators that made it are dead for it is never of force whilst he who so makes it lives Whereupon neither the first Covenant was dedicated without blood For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the Law he took the blood of Calves and of Goats with water and scarlet Wool and Hyssop and sprinkled both the Book and all the people saying This is the blood of the Covenant (i) Exo. 24.8 which God hath enjoyned unto you That I render the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the death of the Mediator that makes the Covenant is because the Apostle speaks in the verse before of him who makes the Covenant not as a Party but as a Mediator and what is here said therefore of the Maker of a Covenant to be understood of such a Maker of it That I render those words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for a Covenant becomes firm after those Mediators who made it are dead is be cause those words are intended as a confirmation of the former ones and so in reason to be understood
washing away their guilt or washing away the pollution of them we shall still find it to be the immediate issue of an inward and spiritual Grace It being the blood of Jesus Christ as the Scriptures (q) Explic. of the Creed in the word Dead every where declare that washeth us from sin in the former sense and the sanctifying Graces of God's spirit (r) Expl. of the Creed in the words I believe in the Holy Ghost which purifie us from it in the other If therefore the Sacrament of Baptism may be said so to wash and purifie it must be as it is an Instrument whereby it conveys to us those graces to which that purification doth belong But so the same Scriptures do yet more expresly declare as to that other Sacrament of our Religion even the Supper of the Lord St. Paul telling us (Å¿) 1 Cor. 10.16 of the bread of it that it is the Communion or Communication of Christ's body as of the Cup that goes along with it that it is the Communion of his blood For what other can we well understand by that expression of his than that they are an instrument whereby God conveys and we accordingly come to partake of that body and blood of Christ which is signified by them This only would be added for the clearer Explication of it that when were present the Sacrament as an instrument whereby God conveys to us that grace which is signified by it we do not mean thereby that it is a natural one or such as contains that grace in it as a Vessel doth liquor or a cause its effect but rather as the Judicious Hookes (t) Eccl. Pol. li. 5. sect 57. speaks as a moral instrument thereof That is to say as such a one to the use whereof God hath made a promise of his grace and which accordingly he will accompany with the exhibition of the other I deny not indeed but there are who are otherwise perswaded and who accordingly either attribute a greater efficacy to a Sacrament or deny even that which we have attributed to it Of the former sort are they who not contented to affirm that a Sacrament is an instrument whereby God conveys grace to the worthy receiver of it do moreover represent it under the notion of a Physical one yea of such a Physical one as contains grace in it as a cause doth its effect and accordingly contributes by its own internal force to the producing of it as well as to the possessing us thereof Even as a Chezil for so they (u) Hist of Counc of Trent li. 2. explain themselves contributes to the formation of a Statue or as a Hatchet to that Bed (w) Aquin. sum Part. 3. Qu. 62. Art 1. which is shaped by it But as it appears by Aquinas (x) Ibid. who was it may be the first framer of it that that conceit had its original from the fear of making a Sacrament to be nothing but a bare sign of grace contrary to the opinion of the Holy Fathers so nothing more therefore can be necessary toward the overthrowing of it than to shew the groundlesness of that fear which the doctrine before deliver'd will sufficiently evince For if it be but a moral instrument whereby God conveys his own graces it is certainly more than a sign yea it may in some sense be said to be a cause as well as the instrument thereof For as they who attribute to a Sacrament the efficacy of a cause make it to be no farther a cause of grace than that it produceth in the Soul a disposition (y) Hist of Counc of Trent li. 2. to receive it by which means it is not so much the cause of grace as of our receiving it so such a kind of causality will be found to belong to it though we make a Sacrament to be no other than a means whereby we attain it Because it is so far forth by the force of a Sacrament that grace comes to be in us that without that we cannot ordinarily hope to attain it nor fear to fail of it where the other is duly receiv'd The only difference as to this particular between the one and the other opinion is that whereas the former makes a Sacrament to dispose us to the reception of Grace as well as to convey it The latter supposeth that disposition already produc'd and consequently leaves no place for the former operation In that respect yet more agreeably to the Doctrine of the Scriptures because not only pre-requiring certain qualifications (z) Act. 8.36 37. 1 Cor. 11.20 of those that are to receive it but assuring them that if they come so qualifi'd they shall not fail * Mark 16.16 Act. 2.38 of that grace which the Sacrament was intended to convey These and the like assertions as they suppose the Soul to be before dispos'd so leaving no place for any other causality in a Sacrament than its serving to us as a means of conveying that grace which we are so disposed to receive And indeed as it doth not appear by any thing that Schoolman hath alledg'd that the Antients ever attributed any other causality to a Sacrament for though St. Augustine as he is quoted by him affirms the power of God to work by a Sacrament yet he doth not affirm it to do so as by a Physical instrument As it appears farther even from that Schoolman that St. Bernard was of opinion that Grace is no otherwise conveyed by a Sacrament than a Canonry in his time was by a Book or a Bishoprick by Ring so there is no defect in the Instances of that Father supposing a Book or a Ring to have been as much a means of conveying of those preferments as we affirm a Sacrament to be of the divine Grace For in that case the delivery of a Ring or a Book would not only have been a sign whereby the delivery of those preferments was declar'd as Aquinas argues in the place before but a ceremony by which they were actually made over and without which they could not have been Canonically invested in them I conclude therefore that if a Sacrament be an instrument of Grace it is a moral one and such as contributes no farther toward our partaking of it than as it is a means to which God hath annex'd the promise of it and which accordingly he will not fail where the receiver is rightly dispos'd to accompany with the exhibition of the other But because there are some who are so far from owning a Sacrament to be a physical instrument of grace that they will not so much as allow it to be a moral one And because such a conceit may tend as much to the depretiating of a Sacrament as the other seems to tend to the overvaluing of it Therefore consider we in the next place the pretensions of those that entertain it and the strength or rather weakness of those pretensions There are who have
consider it as a Feast a Supper-feast or a Supper-feast of the Lord Because intended as a Communion of that Body and Blood by which we are to be nourished to eternal life instituted at first at Supper time and both instituted by and intended for a Commemoration of our Lord. Next to the name of the Lord's Supper reckon we that of the Eucharist or Thanksgiving for so the word Eucharist imports A name thought to have been given to it in the time of the Writel of the New Testament but however following close after it For thus they are wont to interpret what we find in St. Paul (g) 1 Cor. 14.16 17. where he disputes against praying in an unknown tongue Else when thou shalt bless with the Spirit how shall he that occupieth the room of the unlearned say Amen at thy Eucharist or giving of thanks seeing he understandeth not what thou sayest For thou verily givest thanks or celebratest the Eucharist well but the other is not edified Where we have not only the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which are made use of to denote what our Saviour did to the Elements of this Sacrament but an intimation of that Amen which we shall understand afterwards from Justin Martyr to be return'd to the office of it However that be most certain it is that this name of Eucharist followed presently upon those times as appears by the familiar use of it in Ignatius's Epistles For thus he tells us in one place (h) Ep. ad Smyrn pag. 5. ed Voss That certain hereticks abstain'd from the Eucharist and prayer because they confess'd not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ And presently after (i) ib. pag. 6. Let that Eucharist be accounted firm which is under the Bishop or to whom he shall commit it As without whom as it follows it is not lawful to Baptize or celebrate a Love-feast but only what he shall approve In fine saith the same Ignatius elsewhere (k) Ep. ad Phil. pag. 40. endeavour therefore to use one Eucharist For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ and one Cup for the union of his Blood Agreeable hereto that I may not now descend any lower was the language of Justin Martyr's time as may appear from these following testimonies Where he doth not only shew this to have been the name of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper but acquaints us with the reasons of their so denominating it After prayers saith he (l) Apol. 2. pag. 97. are done we salute one another Then is offer'd to him who presides over the Brethren Bread and a cup of Water and Wine Which he taking sendeth forth praise and glory to the Father of the Vniverse through the name of the Son and Holy Ghost and maketh a large Thanksgiving unto God for that we have been made worthy of these things by him Having thus completed the prayers and Thanksgiving all the people present signifie their Assent to it by an Amen which in the Hebrew Tongue is as much as So be it After that the President hath thus given thanks and the people answer'd Amen they who among us are called Deacons give to every one that is present of that Bread and Wine and Water over which thanks hath been given and carry it to those that are absent And this Food saith he is among us called the Eucharist to wit because of the Thanksgivings before remembred To the like purpose doth the same Father discourse elsewhere (m) Dial. cum Tryph. Jud. pag. 259 c. speaking still of the same Sacrament of the Lord's Supper And that offering of fine flowre which was delivered to be offered for those that were cleansed from the Leprosy was a type of the Bread of the Eucharist which Jesus Christ our Lord commanded us to celebrate in remembrance of that passion which he suffered for those that are cleansed in their Souls from all the wickedness of Men That we might at the same time give thanks or keep an Eucharist to God both for his having made the World and all things in it for the sake of man and for his having delivered us from that wickedness in which we sometime were and having perfectly dissolv'd Principalities and Powers by him who was made passible according to his will From which places it is evident that as the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper had at that time the title of the Eucharist or Thanksgiving so it receiv'd its name from those Thanksgivings which were us'd over the Elements thereof and which what they were I shall in another place have a more fit occasion to enquire All I desire to observe at present is that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper receiving one of its most noted names from those Thanksgivings that were us'd over the Elements thereof we are in reason to think that those Thanksgivings contribute in a great measure to that saving nature and efficacy they put on I may not forget to add because that seems as antient as any that the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was also known by the name of breaking of Bread Not only the Syriack version but reason also obliging us so to understand St. Luke where he tells us that the first Converts of the Apostles (n) Acts 2.42 continued stedfast in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship and in breaking of Bread and in prayer As again of the Disciples of Ephesus (o) Acts 20.7 that they came together on the first day of the week to break Bread For what other breaking of Bread can we understand there where it is joyn'd with the Apostles Doctrine and fellowship and prayers and moreover made the special business of the Assemblies of that day which was from the beginning set apart for the honour and service of Almighty God Agreeable hereto was the language of Ignatius's time as appears by this following testimony He describing those (p) ep ad Ephes pag. 29. who communicate with the Bishop and his Presbytery in the exercises of Religion as breaking that one Bread which is the medicine of immortality an antidote against death and a means of living in Jesus Christ for ever And it had no doubt its original from the Hebrews manner of speaking who as I have elsewhere (q) Expl. of the Lord's Prayer in the words Give us this day out daily Bread shewn under the title of Bread comprehended the whole of their entertainments and from the breaking of the Bread of the Eucharist's being one special ceremony about it and intended as St. Paul remarks (r) 1 Cor. 11.24 to signifie the Breaking of Christ's body After which if any Man can think fit to make use of such like passages to justifie a Communion in one kind he may as well hope to shew that even the Feasts of the Hebrews for of such I have shew'n (ſ) Expl. of the Lord's Prayer ubi supra the word Bread to
her But as if any thing be of the substance of the Sacrament the doing of that must be which tends most apparently to set forth the Sacrifice of Christ's Death upon the Cross as which was one great end of its Institution and the most clearly expressed in it So nothing doth or can tend more apparently to the setting forth of that than Men's partaking of that Cup which was by our Saviour himself intended to represent the Blood of that Sacrifice of his as poured out for our Expiation and Remission PART V. Of the inward Part of the Lord's Supper or the thing signified by it The Contents The inward Part of the Lord's Supper or the thing signified by it is either what is signified on the part of God and Christ or on the part of the Receiver of it The former of these brought under Consideration and shewn to be the Body and Blood of Christ not as they were at or before the Institution of this Sacrament or as they now are but as thâ—y were at the time of his Crucifixion as moreover then offered up unto God and offer'd up to him also as a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of the World The Consequences of that Assertion briefly noted both as to the presence of that Body and Blood in the Sacrament and our perception of them The things signified on the part of the Receiver in the next place consider'd and these shewn to be First a thankful Remembrance of the Body and Blood of Christ consider'd as before described Secondly our Communion with those who partake with us of that Body and Blood Thirdly a Resolution to live and act as becomes those that are partakers of them The two latter of these more particularly insisted on and that Communion and Resolution not only shewn from the Scripture to be signified on the part of the Receiver but confirmed by the Doctrine and Practice of the Antient Church II. THE outward Part or Sign of the Lord's Supper being thus accounted for Question What is the inward part or thing signified and that shewn to be no other than Bread and Wine which the Lord hath commanded to be receiv'd Reason would as well as the Method before laid down that I should entreat of the inward part thereof or the thing signified by it Answer The Body and Blood of Crhist which are verily and indeed taken and received by the Faithful in the Lord's Supper Which on the part of God and Christ is that Christ's Body and Blood As on our part a thankful Remembrance of them our Communion with those who partake with us thereof and a Resolution to live and act as becomes those that are partakers of them That which our Catechism obligeth us especially to consider is that which is signified on the part of God and Christ and which accordingly it declares to be that Christ's Body and Blood A thing which consider'd in the general admits of no dispute because the plain Assertion of the Scripture as well as the Acknowledgment of all sorts of Men however otherwise divided about the Sacrament thereof or the presence of that Body and Blood in it They all agreeing as they must that the Body of Christ is that which is signified by one of its Signs and the Blood of Christ which is signified by the other But as it is not so well agreed under what Notion we are to consider that Body and Blood nor for ought that I have observ'd much attended to which is it may be the principal Cause of all the Controversie in this Particular So I shall therefore for the farther clearing of the thing or things signified by this Sacrament enquire under what Notion we ought to consider them which if we have a due regard to the words of the Institution will not be so difficult to unfold For from thence it will appear first that we ought to consider Christ's Body and Blood here not in the state wherein they were at or before the Institution of this Sacrament or in that more happy one to which they are now arriv'd but as they were at the time of our Saviour's Crucifixion To wit the one as given to Death or broken and the other as shed for us Which St. Paul farther confirms when he tells his Corinthians * 1 Cor. 11.26 that as often as they ate the Bread of this Sacrament and drank the Cup of it they did shew forth the Lord's death till he came The consequent whereof will be secondly because that Death of Christ is represented by the Scriptures as a Sacrifice that we ought to look upon that Body and Blood of Christ which we have said to be signified by this Sacrament as offer'd unto God by him and as such to be consider'd in it Which they of all Men have the least reason to refuse who do not only affirm †Conc. Trid. Sess 22. cap. 1. with us that this Sacrament was intended for a Memorial of the Sacrifice of Christ upon the Cross but that the Body and Blood of Christ is even now * Ibid. offer'd up to God in it under the respective Species thereof It is as little to be doubted thirdly That as we ought to consider the Body and Blood of Christ here as offer'd up to God for us so we ought to consider them as offer'd up as a propitiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of those Persons for whom it is offer'd Which is not only evident from the words of the Institution because representing the Cup of this Sacrament as the Blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the Remission of Sins but abundantly confirm'd by the suffrage of those Men with whom we have most to do in this Affair They not only representing the Sacrifice of the Mass as they are pleas'd to call this Sacrament as one and the same Sacrifice with that which our Saviour offer'd upon the Cross but as a truly propitiatory one (a) Ib. cap. 2. and which accordingly is of force for the sins of the quick and the dead and tends to the remission of them Of what use these Considerations are will more fully appear when I come to entreat of that relation which the outward Signs of this Sacrament have to the inward part thereof or the things signified by them At present it may suffice briefly to note that the Body and Blood of Christ consider'd as broken and shed upon the Cross having now no Existence in the World nor any more capable of having such an Existence than that which is past can be recall'd They cannot be substantially present either to the Sacramental Elements or to the Person that receiveth them nor be substantially eaten and drunken by him that eats and drinks the other That they must therefore be present to the Sacramental Elements in a Figure or Mystery and to the Receiver by their respective Vertue and Efficacy That being as was before said to be consider'd as offer'd up to
them It will not be difficult to make answer that that notion can have no place where St. Paul makes it his business as he doth where he recites the Institution to awe Men into a reverential receit of this Holy Sacrament To think that St. Paul would so often call that Bread which was a thing infinitely above it when his Design was to awe Men into a reverential receit of it being to think he either knew not how to suit his Expressions to it or that he basely and invidiously betray'd it I will conclude what I have to say against the substantial change of the Sacramental Elements when I have shewn from the Antients that such a change was unknown to them Which I shall endeavour to evince first from what they say concerning their continuing in the same nature in which they were before and then from what they say concerning their being Types and Symbols and Images of that Body and Blood into which the Romanists affirm them to be transubstantiated That the Antients represented the Sacramental Elements as continuing in the same nature in which they were before will appear first from what I have elsewhere said (n) Part 1. concerning their representing our Eucharist as an Eucharist for the things of this World and particularly for the Fruits of the Earth as well as for the Body and Blood of Christ and professing to eat of the Bread of it even when become the Body of Christ by Prayer as a Testimony of their Thankfulness for the other For how is that an Eucharist for the things of this World and particularly for the Fruits of the Earth which is now all Heavenly neither hath any thing of an earthly sustenance remaining Or how we said to eat of the Bread of it in token of such a Thankfulness if there be nothing at all in it of what we profess to give thanks for All other Offerings beside this having some affinity with that which they pretend to be Offerings of Thanks for Neither will it avail to say which is all that can be said that our Eucharist may become such even for earthly Boons by the remaining species thereof For beside that the Antients make no mention of any such separate species and we therefore not to interpret what they say of Bread and other such substantial things concerning the bare species thereof It is plain from what was before quoted out of Irenaeus that that which was tender'd unto God in this Eucharistical offering was the creatures of Bread and Wine and from Origen that the Eucharistical Offering consisted in eating of what was tendered to him as well as in the tendry it self So that if they were the Creatures of God that were tender'd to him and not only the species thereof they were the same Creatures and not only the species thereof that were in their opinion eaten and drunken by them and consequently by which they gave thanks to God for the Fruits of the Earth as well as for the great Blessing of our Redemption But of all the things that are said by the Antients to shew their belief of the Sacramental Elements continuing in the same nature in which they were before nothing certainly is of more force than the use they make of that relation which is between them and Christ's Body and Blood to shew against the Apollinarians and Eutychians that the divine and humane nature however united in the person of Jesus Christ yet are not so made one as to be confounded and mixed together as the Apollinarians taught his divine nature and flesh to be or the humane nature to be swallowed up into the divine as the Eutychians did For to confute each of these and to shew the distinction there is between the two natures of Christ the Antients alledged the near relation there is between the Sacramental Elements and Christ's Body and Blood but which how near soever doth not confound or destroy the truth of their respective natures but preserves both the one and the other of them entire For thus St. Chrysostome in his Epistle to Caesarius lately published (o) Appendix to the Def. of an Exposit of the Doctrine of the Church of England against de Meaux against the Doctrine of the Apollinarians As before the Bread is sanctified we name it Bread but the divine Grace sanctifying it through the mediation of the Priest it is freed from the title of Bread and thought worthy of the title of the Body of the Lord although the nature of Bread remaineth in it and it is not said to be two Bodies but one Body of the Lord So also here the divine nature being placed in the Body they both together make up one Son and one person but without confusion as well as division not in one nature but in two perfect ones So that as surely as the two natures of Christ continue distinct and unconfounded so the Sacramental Elements and the thing signified by them do because made use of to illustrate the distinction of the other To the same purpose though more clearly and fully doth Theodoret discourse in his Dialogues against the Eutychians For taking notice in one place (p) Dial. 1. c. 8. of our Saviour's calling Bread by the name of his Body and in like manner his Flesh by the name of Meat he proceeds to give this reason of that change of names To wit That he intended thereby to prompt those that partake of the divine Mysteries not to attend to the nature of the things that are seen but by that change of names to give belief to that change which is made by grace For he that called his natural Body Meat and Bread and again nam'd himself a Vine the very same person honour'd the Symbols that are seen with the title of his Body and Blood not changing their nature but adding grace to nature And again (q) Dial. 2. c. 24. after he had acknowledg'd to the Eutychian that the gift that was offer'd was call'd by its proper name before the invocation of the Priest but the Body and Blood of Christ after the sanctification of it and the Eutychians replying thereupon that as the Symbols of the Lord's Body and Blood are one thing before the invocation of the Priest but after that invocation they are chang'd and become other things so the Lord's Body after its assumption is chang'd into the divine essence He hath these very emphatical words You are caught saith he in those nets which you your self have weav'd For neither do the mystical Symbols after their sanctification go out of their own nature For they abide in their former essence and figure and fashion and are visible and palpable as they were before But they are understood to be Blood they have been made to wit Symbols of Christ's Body and what and believ'd and reverenc'd as being what they are believ'd In like manner the natural Body of Christ which is the Archetype thereof hath its former
in eo adesse credimus quem pater aeternus introducens in orbem terrarum dicit Et adorent eum omnes Augeli Dei c. speak of the very same God being present in it than that the Tridentine Fathers meant by the former words the Sacrament properly so stil'd even those species under which they elsewhere affirm Christ to be and that accordingly they requir'd divine worship to be given to them And if that was their meaning that they thereby requir'd divine worship to be given to Creatures yea the most imperfect ones and such too as because not inhering in that Body of Christ which is said to be under them cannot be suppos'd to be personally united to him Than which what can be said that doth more entrench upon the divine honour yea upon the honour of that Christ whom they pretend to worship in this Sacrament Those species though no part at all of him being yet joyn'd in equal honour with him that which is in effect but the shadow of a meer Creature with the great Creatour and Redeemer of the World But let us suppose that those Fathers meant no more by the word Sacrament than Jesus Christ in it and consequently that so far forth there is no pretence for the charge of Idolatry in this affair Yet how will the Romanists acquit themselves from it supposing as we often may that the Elements are not rightly consecrated and no real presence therefore of Christ's Body and Blood under the species of them For in that case their worship must be terminated on the Bread because there is nothing else to receive it Now that the supposition I before made is no way unreasonable will appear from their affirming that the intention of the Minister to do at least what the Church enjoyns (c) Sess 17. can 11. is requir'd to the making of a Sacrament For what if the intention of the Minister when he comes to the words of Consecration wander from the matter in hand Or if not so yet doth not aim to do what the Church doth as they that believe not Transubstantiation certainly cannot of which number (d) See Pref. to the Discourse of the Holy Euch. c. there are not a few Or which is worst of all as a Priest is sometime said to have directed his (e) Meric Casaub Necess of Res p. 75. for seven or eight years together be set upon doing honour to the Devil rather than to our Lord Jesus Christ In each of these cases certainly there can be no real conversion of the Elements into the Body and Blood of Christ and therefore they that pay adoration to them rather worshippers of the Creature than of him who was the Institutor of this Sacrament And I know not of any tolerable evasion in this affair save what is said to have been suggested by Gerson even by worshipping the host conditionally and upon supposition of its being the Body of Christ But as that is a sort of worshipping which few of the unlearned are acquainted with and which can do no great good to those that are Such an uncertainty as that being as likely to take off the edge of their devotions as to help them in the directing of their intentions So that cannot however hinder the external act from being fixed upon the Creature and consequently cannot but make the door of that external act guilty of material Idolatry though not of any formal one Which material Idolatry though it may not perhaps reflect upon the worshipper because of his invincible ignorance in this affair Yet which is worse will if suppos'd reflect upon God for not providing against it in so many cases as may happen Especially if the like intention be either wanting or perverted in the person that baptiz'd or ordained the Consecrater because then all he doth at any time will be null For how is it consistent with the honour or goodness of that God who was in their opinion so gracious to his Church as to furnish it with an infallible guide not to provide against so many members of it paying their external adoration to a piece of Bread at the same time they desir'd and intended to address it to his Son I will conclude my discourse of this assertion when I have taken notice of one piece of Sophistry which is employ'd by the Romanists to save themselves from the imputation of Idolatry though there should be no such thing as Transubstantiation in the World That I mean which they alledge and our Taylour (f) Liberty of Proph. Sect. 20. num 16. in their behalf concerning their directing their worship not to Bread which they believe not to be present but to the Body and Blood of Christ or rather to Christ in person whom they conceive to be corporally present in it But as they do not I confess intentionally direct their worship to Bread or at least not to Bread as such because they believe it not to continue where they direct their worship So I do not see how that hinders their directing it indeed and in truth to Bread supposing that not to be transubstantiated into Christ's Body Because as their outward worship is manifestly directed to that substance which is under the species of Bread So believing as they do that that Substance is Christ's Body they must consequently be thought to direct their inward worship also to it and if therefore there be nothing else there to simple Bread And I know of nothing that can excuse them in this point unless it be their own mistake which how far it will avail them in this particular I for my part shall not take upon me to determine But as that mistake of theirs will not however change the nature of the action or make it cease to be the adoration of a Creature So it will not change it in the sight of God if the mistake be gross and affected which they have just cause to look after who have so little ground from Scripture for the belief of that Transubstantiation which is the foundation of it and so much against it from the same Scripture and Antiquity and Sense and Reason which are all the Topicks we can argue from Next to the worshipping of Christ as present in the Sacrament of the Eucharist consider we our really eating him in it as well as either spiritually or sacramentally A thing as the Romanists themselves confess which depends upon his being substantially there and must therefore fall of course with that substantial presence which I have before destroy'd But as this Assertion is not without weakness of its own and would therefore be considered apart So I think it therefore but reasonable to be more particular in the handling of it than would otherwise be necessary for me to be And here in the first place I cannot but observe that where the Council of Trent intreats of this affair it opposeth real as well as sacramental manducation to that which
(k) Joh. 6.34 which he had but just before affirm'd to give Life unto the World he not only declar'd to them in express words that he (l) Joh. 6.35 was that Bread of Life but sufficiently intimated that the way for them to attain it and that Life together with it was by coming to him and believing on him For he that cometh to me saith our Saviour (m) Ibid. shall never hunger and he that believeth on me shall never thirst And he farther confirms that sort of eating by suggesting as he goes that it was the Will of his Father that every one which seeth the Son (n) Joh. 6.40 and believeth on him should have everlasting Life and that he that believeth on him (o) Joh. 6.47 hath everlasting Life For how was that either pertinent to the account he gave of his being the Bread of Life or but consistent with what he afterward saith that except (p) Joh. 6.53 they ate his Flesh and drank his Blood they had no Life in them if that belief in him were not the thing intended by the eating of him and that eating therefore a spiritual rather than a corporal one In like manner when some of his Disciples conceiving he intended another sort of eating were offended with that Discourse of his and represented it as an hard (q) Joh. 6.60 and unnatural one After he had ask'd them What if they should see the Son of Man ascend up (r) Joh. 6.62 where he was before whether the more to enhance the Difficulty before he resolv'd it or by the mention of his ascending into Heaven to take them off from understanding him in a carnal sense he hath these following words (s) Joh. 6.63 It is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profiteth nothing The words that I speak unto you they are Spirit and they are Life The most plain and obvious meaning of which words is that it was the spiritual eating and not the carnal one that availed unto Life and that it was of such an eating that he had spoken all along as the only one from which eternal Life could be expected And indeed as the latter part of the words cannot well bear any other sense because words cannot be Spirit and Life unless it be as to the sense and meaning of them So I do not see how any other sense can answer that Design for which these and the former words were produc'd even the softning of that hard saying which the Disciples were so offended at To say as the Romanists (t) Annot. in loc in Vers de Mons do that our Saviour intended thereby that it was his Spirit or Divinity which made that Flesh of his to be such living Food and not any Property of the Flesh consider'd as separated from it answering in some measure what scruple they might have concerning its giving eternal Life to those that eat of it but answering not at all the scruple they had concerning the possibility of that Flesh of his being divided among so many or the lawfulness of their eating of it though it could be so divided For so far is the sense of the Romanists from answering the latter of these Scruples that it makes it yet more painful by how much more unnatural it is to eat the Flesh of him that was God-man as well as a living one than that of a meer Man and one that is also dead Sure I am St. Augustine was so choak'd with the literal sense of that which Christ's Disciples and the Jews are said to have been offended at that he took occasion from thence to assert (u) De Doct. Christ li. 3. cap. 15. Si autem praeceptiva locutio flagitium aut facinus videtur jubere aut utilitatem an t beneficentiam vetare figurata est Nisi manducaveritis inquit carnem filii hominis sanguinem biberitis non habebitis vitam in vobis faâ—inus vel flagitium videtur jubere Figura est ergo praecipiens passioni Domini esse Communicandum suaviter atque utiliter recondendum in memoriâ quòd pro nobis caro ejus Crucifixa vulnerata sit not only that that and other such like Precepts as seem to command any great wickedness ought to be look'd upon rather as figurative than proper but resolv'd the meaning of what is said concerning the eating of Christ's Flesh and drinking his Blood to be that we ought to communicate with his Passion and sweetly and profitably to lay up in our Memory that his Flesh was crucified and wounded for us Conformably to which he elsewhere (w) In Joh. Tract 26. En. in Psal 98. understands by those words They are Spirit and they are Life They ought to be spiritually understood and will be Spirit and Life to those which have that understanding of them And therefore as I cannot but wonder that the Romanists should think to free themselves from the Carnality of Christ's Disciples and the Jews because they do not understand our Saviour here of tearing his Flesh with their Teeth as the other are thought to have done For to take that Flesh into their Mouths which is their avow'd opinion and transmit it from thence into their Stomachs though it look like an improper eating yet will hardly pass for a figurative or spiritual one as the Scripture and St. Augustine represent the eating here enjoin'd so I cannot forbear with the same St. Augustine to admonish even with respect to the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament (x) Nolite parare fauces sed cor Inde commendata est ista coena Ecce credimus in Christum cum fide accipimus In accipiendo novimus quid cogitemus Modicum accipimus in corde saginamur Non ergo quod videtur sed quod creditur pascit De verbis Dom. Serm. 33. that we prepare not our Jaws but our Heart because the commendation of that Supper is that it was prepar'd for the latter Behold we then believe in Christ we receive him with Faith In receiving we know what we ought to think upon We receive a little and are fatned in the Heart It is not therefore that which is seen that feeds but that which is believ'd PART VIII Of Consubstantiation The Contents An account of that Doctrine which is by us called Consubstantiation out of the Augustan Confession and Gerhard And as it is founded by him and other the Lutheran Doctors in the letter of the words This is my Body and This is my Blood so Enquiry thereupon made first whether those words ought to be taken in the literal sense Secondly whether if so taken Consubstantiation can be inferred from them That the former words ought to be taken in the literal sense is endeavour'd by the Lutherans to be prov'd by general and special Arguments and those Arguments therefore propos'd and answer'd What is alledg'd in the general concerning the literal sense of Scripture being for the most part to
be preferr'd before the figurative willingly allowd But that no exception ought to be made unless where the Scripture it self obligeth us to depart from the literal sense shewn to be neither true in it self nor pertinent to the present Texts because there is enough in the words that follow them to oblige us to preferr the figurative sense before it The Lutherans special Arguments next brought under Consideration and First that which is drawn from the supposed newness and strangeness of the Christian Sacraments at the first and which consequently requir'd that they should be deliver'd in proper and literal Expressions as without which otherwise there could have been no certain knowledge of them Where is shewn that the Christian Sacraments were neither such new and strange things at the first Institution of them as is pretended There having been the like under the Old Testament nor under any necessity if they had been such of being delivered in literal and proper Expressions because figurative Expressions with a Key to open them might have sufficiently declar'd the nature of them What is urg'd in the second place from the nature of a Testament under the form of which this Sacrament is thought from Luke 22.20 to have been instituted shewn to be of as little force Partly because it is justly questionable whether what we there render Testament ought not rather to be render'd a Covenant and partly because even Civil Testaments are shewn to admit of figurative Expressions A short Answer made to what is alledg'd in the third and fourth place from the Majesty of him that instituted this Sacrament and from the supposed Conformity there is between the several Evangelists and St. Paul in their accounts of the words in question And a more full one to what is offer'd in the fifth place to shew the absurdity of a figurative Sense from the no place there is for it either in the Subject Predicate or Copula The Copula or the word Is thereupon made choice of to place the Figure in and answer made to what is objected against it from the Rules of Logick and from the Scripture That the literal Sense is not as is pretended in the sixth Argument the only one that can quiet the Mind or secure the Conscience briefly shewn And Enquiry next made whether though the literal Sense of the words should be allow'd Consubstantiation could be inferred from them Which that it cannot is made appear from there being nothing in the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or This to denote that complexum quid which Consubstantiation advanceth IF Transubstantiation be a hard word and such as will not easily down with the Romanists themselves That which the generality of Men call Consubstantiation but the Lutherans themselves †Confess August Art 10. Cons Cassand ad dict Art a true real and substantial Presence of Christ's Body and Blood will be found to be of no very easie digestion by those that shall take the pains to consider it For though it doth not pretend to annihilate or transform the Sacramental Elements and therefore neither offer that violence to our Senses and the Scripture which Transubstantiation doth Yet which is hard enough to believe it professeth to teach * Gerhard Loc. Commun Tract de Sacr. Caenâ cap. 10. that the Body of Christ is so united to the blessed Bread and the Blood of Christ to the blessed Wine that together with that Bread we receive and eat the Body of Christ by one Sacramental Manducation and together with that Wine receive and drink the Blood of Christ by one Sacramental Draught By which means Christ's glorious Body is not only contrary to the nature of a Body made to be present to many places at once even to Heaven and as many other as this holy Sacrament is celebrated in but for ought that I can discern jumbled together into one Physical Mass with those Sacramental Elements to which it is affirmed to be united which is that Consubstantiation which they seem so desirous to avoid This Union as it is in their own opinion an union of Substances and of corporeal Substances also So so strait a one as to occasion their own affirming that the Body and Blood of Christ are given in with and under their respective Elements which how they should be without the former Consubstantiation is not easie to imagine Now as this opinion of the Lutherans is founded by themselves upon the literal sense of the words This is my Body and This is my Blood and must therefore stand or fall with it So I shall therefore think it enough to enquire 1. Whether those words ought to be taken in the literal sense 2. Whether supposing that they should be so understood that which we call Consubstantiation can be inferred from them 1. That the words This is my Body and This is my Blood Vid. Gerhard ubi supra ought to be taken in the literal sense is affirmed by the Lutherans as well as by the Romanists and both general and special Arguments alledged for it Whereof the former are that the literal sense because the first and most natural is generally to be prefer'd before the figurative one That this ought especially to be observ'd in the Interpretation of the Scripture unless the Scripture it self oblige us to depart from it but most of all in divine Precepts Promises and Articles of Faith Partly because of the danger there may be of running into great errours if the literal sense should not generally be adhered to and partly because it is pretended that there is nothing of the former nature which in some place of Scripture or other is not delivered in plain and literal expressions and by which judgment may be made of what is elsewhere deliver'd in figurative ones And I willingly grant that the literal sense because the first and most natural is generally to be prefer'd before the figurative And I grant too that this ought especially to be observ'd in the Interpretation of the Scripture But that no exception ought to be made from this general rule unless the Scripture it self oblige us to depart from the literal sense is a thing I see no reason for where the matter intreated of is a proper matter of Reason or of that law of Nature which is conducted by it Partly because in such a case Reason and Nature may be presum'd to be competent judges of the thing intreated of and consequently may prescribe against the literal sense of such expressions as shall be found to be manifestly contrary to the dictates of it And partly because the great design of Scripture being to direct us in supernatural things it may well enough be presum'd to leave things of the former nature to be judg'd of for the main by that Reason to whose cognisance they do belong Thus for instance because the preservation of those natures which God hath given us is a thing proper enough for the cognisance of
Reason and Nature and manifestly prescrib'd by the dictates of it not only we but all Christians whatsoever think themselves licensed if not oblig'd to put a figurative sense upon those words which command the pulling out an offending eye or cutting off an offending hand yea though there should not be as perhaps there is not any so express precept of Scripture against the mutilation of our selves But let us examine yet more nearly the purport of the former Argument as it relates to such divine precepts and promises as may seem to have a more particular regard to the life to come and so may be rather reckoned to supernatural truths than moral ones For neither here is it so clear that the literal sense is to prevail unless some text be produced which shall oblige us to the contrary Neither if it were would it be of force to conclude against a figurative interpretation of those words for which this Argument is alledged I instance for the former of these in what was but even now †Part 7. quoted out of St. Augustine concerning our looking upon that as a figurative expression which enjoyns the eating of Christ's Flesh and drinking his Blood in order to eternal life For as that Father thought it enough to prove that expression to be such because it seem'd to command a great wickedness without so much as taking notice of any Scripture that represented it as such so I do not see what text can be produc'd that is so express against the eating of humane Flesh and drinking humane Blood as this is for the eating and drinking them in the present instance In which case that wickedness which St. Augustin affirms the former precept to lead to in the literal sense must be pronounc'd as such by the law of Reason and Nature and no necessity therefore of sticking to the literal sense of any Scripture till we can find as express a text elsewhere to take us off from the embracing of it But let us suppose that the literal sense is to prevail till some text of Scripture can be produc'd which shall oblige us to a contrary one Yet will it not therefore follow but that the words we are now upon may and ought to be figuratively taken because there is enough in those that follow to oblige us to it I alledge for this purpose our Saviour's representing the things he gave as his Body broken and Blood shed which his natural Body and Blood were not at the Institution of this Sacrament nor can now be since his Resurrection from the dead For if the Body and Blood of Christ were not then broken or shed nor can be so since his Resurrection from the dead what our Saviour then gave or we now receive cannot be that Body and Blood and therefore to be understood rather as Signs and efficacious Means of conveying the Merit of that Body and Blood to us than as the letter of the words seems to import that Body and Blood it self The same is yet more evident from our Saviour's requiring his Disciples to do that whole action and particularly to eat and drink the things given in remembrance of him and of his death That which is design'd as a memorial of any thing being in reason to be look'd upon as a thing distinct from that which it was intended as a memorial of and design'd to supply the place of Neither will it avail to say as it is in my opinion idly enough that if the last suggestion were true Christ's Body and Blood must have been absent from that Sacrament which our Saviour celebrated with his Disciples which it is certain from the Story that they were not For as that Sacrament it self was principally design'd for the times succeeding our Saviour's passion and the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or remembrance in all probability made use of with a particular relation to them So Christ's Body broken and Blood shed were as much absent from that Table and Sacrament as they are from our Sacramental Tables or any other Those general Arguments of the Lutherans being of no more force let us cast our eyes upon their special ones or at least upon such of them as seem most worthy of our regard Whereof the first that occurs is taken from the nature of a Sacrament which as they say being a thing perfectly new and accordingly unknown to all Men till it come to be reveal'd is in reason to be delivered in proper and literal expressions as concerning which otherwise there can be no certain knowledg Which suppos'd the words that declare this Sacrament must be concluded to be such and as such understood and asserted A Man would wonder to hear Learned Men argue at this rate concerning the Sacraments of our Saviour when it appears by what I have elsewhere (‖) Expl. of the Sacr. in Gen. Part 4. said that there were several such things before and by which St. Paul tells us that the Jews did all eat the same spiritual meat with us and drank the same spiritual drink even Christ Yea though the natural Body and Blood of Christ were not then in being and consequently could not literally be eaten or drunken For how come our Sacraments to be such new and unknown things when there were the like long before Or how under a necessity of being deliver'd in literal and proper expressions when there were not only such like Sacraments to give light to them though figuratively delivered but the Doctrine of those Antient Sacraments deliver'd even by St. Paul in those very figurative expressions which are thought to be such absurdities in ours For however we may be thought literally to eat and drink Christ's Body and Blood yet they to be sure cannot be thought to have done so who liv'd before that Body and Blood of Christ were in being Though granting that our Sacraments were at first as new and unknown as it is pretended that they are Yet will it not therefore follow but that they might be delivered in figurative as well as in literal expressions Because figurative expressions according to themselves may be easily enough understood if there be but a Key to open them Now whether there be not such a Key to open the figurative expressions of the present Sacrament I shall leave to those to judge who shall reflect upon our Saviour's representing the Symbols of this Sacrament as his Body broken and Blood shed and willing us moreover to eat and drink of them in remembrance of him and of his crucifixion Those two things being enough to assure us that the things given by our Saviour were rather Memorials of that Body and Blood of his and conveyers of the Merits of them than either the substance of that Body and Blood or the Means of communicating it to the Mouths and Stomachs of those who were to partake of them But it may be there is more force in what they argue from the nature of a Testament upon
occasion of those words of our Saviour This is my Blood of the New Testament or The New Testament in it which is shed for many for the remission of Sins For since it should seem by those expressions that that Sacrament was instituted under the form of a Testament the words whereof ought in reason to be taken in the literal sense as without which all Testaments would be very uncertain and litigious Therefore the words of this Sacrament and particularly such of them as respect the principal Legacies in it ought to be taken in the literal sense and not in a figurative one If a Man should make answer as I have elsewhere (a) Expl. of the â—â—â—r in Gen. Part â— done and I think too not without great reason that what we render Testament ought to be rendred a Covenant all that argument would be spon'd and whatever the promoters of it have brought concerning Testaments out of the Body of the Civil Law or the Interpreters thereof But I will however allow for once the usual rendring of the Word and answer directly to that Argument which is formed from it As indeed what should hinder me when those very Laws which they pretend to do not prove what they are designed for For such I look upon that (b) Ille aut ille D. de legat fidei commiss which saith that when there is no ambiguity in the words there ought to be no question made concerning the Will of the Testatour For who will allow these Men to suppose that there is no ambiguity in the words of the present Testament strictly and literally understood and particularly in those words that are the subject of the present controversie As little force is there in that Law (c) L. Non aliter D. de legatis c. which saith that we ought not otherwise to depart from the natural signification of words than when it is manifest that the Testatour meant somewhat else than what seems to have been expressed in them For one would think that should consider what impossibilities and contradictions the literal sense of This is my Body and This is my Blood involves one would think I say that those alone should make it manifest enough that the Testatour meant somewhat else than what the literal sense of the words will necessarily lead Men to So little reason is there to believe that there is any thing even in the Civil Law to persuade a strict and literal interpretation of all that a Testament contains And they who produce the two former Laws to persuade such an Interpretation are the more inexcusable in it because if they had pleas'd to read on to the paragraph Titius in the latter of them they would have seen enough to make them asham'd of their pretensions Because it is there affirm'd in express terms that we are not in a cause of Testaments to descend to a strict definition of words since for the most part Testatours speak abusively neither do they always use proper Names and Titles All which things I have said not as constrain'd thereto by the force of the present Argument For I know no reason why the sense of the New Testament should be judg'd of by the niceties of the Law but to let the World see how partial Men are in the allegations of such proofs as they think to be of use to them For beside what was before quoted from the Law concerning Testatours speaking abusively and improperly the same Law gives us to understand (d) L. ex facto D. de haered institu Paragr Rerum aubem Italicarum that the will of the deceased doth all and that (e) L. Siquis â—ta D. de adimendis vel tâ—ansferendis c. Par. Condit Legati his sense is more to be regarded than the words Which could have no sense in it if Legitimate Testaments were alway to be taken in the strictness of the letter For then the will or sense of the Testatour and the words of his Testament would be perfectly the same The next argument for the literal sense of the words in question is taken from the Majesty of him that instituted this Sacrament and from all those glorious Attributes that make it up Such as are his Truth and the place he holds under God of our Instructer his being the very wisdom of the Father and omniscient his being nigh unto death when he instituted this Sacrament and so much the more likely still to weigh all the words he utter'd in this important affair as in fine his being so far from giving any indication of other than a literal Interpretation of the present words that when he was advanced to Heaven he reveal'd the Doctrine of the Eucharist in the very same words wherein he had before exhibited it Things which for the most part must be acknowledg'd to be duly attributed to Christ but which have no force at all to conclude the thing in question For what if Christ be true and appointed by God to be our Instructer Will it therefore follow that we must understand all he saith in the Letter though we want not sufficient Indications even from some of his own words that we ought to understand him in a figurative sense All that they who press us with Christ's Truth and the Place he holds under God seem to pretend to is that we ought to hear him and be guided by him in our Belief Which I suppose they do to very good purpose who submit their Belief to that which all things consider'd they are firmly perswaded to be his Mind and Will But it is farther alledg'd that Christ is the very Wisdom of the Father and one who could therefore express his Mind clearly and plainly and in proper and literal Expressions as well as in figurative ones And whoever doubted of it or could doubt of it who look'd upon him but as an ordinary Prophet and not as one who was also of the same Essence with the Father But as the Question is not What Christ could do but What he hath done So we find no reason to grant but that our Saviour hath spoken plainly enough to those that are willing to understand him The Argument goes on to alledge that our Saviour was omniscient and as he could not therefore but know what Contentions would arise about this part of heavenly Doctrine to the certain destruction of Souls So it is not at all likely that he would so far contribute to it as of set purpose to wrap the true and certain meaning of this holy Mystery in the dark coverings of figurative words But as I do not find any necessity to grant that Christ was bound to do all he could to prevent the Contentions that might afterwards happen because as St. Paul spake (f) 1 Cor. 11.19 concerning Heresies this Good might accrue by them that they that were approved might thereby be made manifest So I see as little reason to grant that Christ did
any way contribute to those Contentions or the ruine of Souls by them by those figurative Expressions which he made use of in the present instance Those Coverings wherein the Doctrine of the Sacrament is suppos'd to be wrap'd up being not so thick or obscure but that they may be seen through by Men of unprejudiced Minds I know not why it is added unless it be to fill up the number of its forces that our Saviour was near to death when he instituted this Sacrament and therefore no doubt well weighed before-hand what he spake concerning it For who but a blasphemous Heretick ever thought or said that our Saviour under any Circumstances knew not what he spake And therefore I shall only take notice of that which concludes the present Argument even that our Saviour was so far from giving any indication of other than a literal interpretation that after he was advanced to Heave he reveal'd the Doctrine of it in the same words wherein it was at first delivered For not to say any thing at present to the latter part of this Allegation Our Saviour as was before shewn gave sufficient Indications of a figurative Interpretation when he represented the things given as his Body broken and Blood shed which they were not then nor can be now and moreover willed his Disciples to partake of what he gave them in remembrance of him and of his death A fourth Argument for the literal sense of the words in question is the great Conformity there is between the several Historians of the Institution as to the words we are now upon It being not to be thought but that if they had been to be taken in other than a simple and proper sense one or other of those holy Men would have added an Explication of them But neither is there that Conformity between them as to the words whereof we speak neither can it be said that none of those Historians have given an Explication of them For though for instance This is my Body is indeed in all of them and we so far forth oblig'd to acknowledge a Conformity between them in their account of the present words Yet St. Luke and St. Paul add to those words which is given for you and which is broken for you which are not only Additions but if what I have elsewhere said (g) Part 5. be well weigh'd due Explications of them also and such as shew them not to be capable of that literal Interpretation which they are so willing to put upon them There is as little truth in what is added that none of those Historians have given any explication of them For not to repeat what was but now said concerning the words which is given or broken for you St. Luke and St. Paul take care to remark that our Saviour enjoin'd his Disciples to eat what he gave them in remembrance of him and of his Death which is no obscure Indication of those words being to be figuratively understood The fifth Argument for the literal Sense is the supposed Absurdity of the figurative Which the better to evince it is pretended that there is no place for any Figure either in the Subject Predicate or the Copula that ties them together And if there be no Figure in either of these there is no Figure at all and the Propositions therefore that are compos'd of them to be literally understood Now as I have elsewhere (h) Part 3. affirm'd the figurativeness of these Propositions to consist in the word Is as which I have there shewn to be the same in sense with signifies and accordingly so us'd in Speeches of the like nature So I shall therefore content my self to return an Answer to what is objected as to the figurativeness of that word whether it be from Logick or from the Scripture Now the first thing that is objected from the former of these Heads is that the Copula or the word Is is no part of a Proposition according to Aristotle and others and therefore the figurativeness of the whole not to be placed in it I will leave it to the Sophisters to answer to Aristotle's Authority because I think that Office is fitter for them than for a Divine It shall suffice me to make answer that as a Man of good natural Understanding would take that to be a part of a Proposition without which in many Propositions the Subject and Predicate could have no connexion nor any more constitute a Proposition than Stone and Timber and other Materials do a House till they are united to one another and compacted into a Building of that Shape and use So men that have had a Name for this Art of Reasoning have been of a quite different opinion from the Objectors and not only not look'd upon the word Is as no part of the Proposition but as the very Soul of it For the Copula saith Petrus à Sancto Joseph (i) Idea Phil. Ration li. 2. Art 4. is to the Subject and Predicate as the Form is to the material parts of any thing and gives them the Essence of a Proposition After the same manner as the formal part of a House is not the Stones and Timber of it but that by which they are connected And Burgersdicius an Author better known and as terrible a Man at the Art of Reasoning is not only of the same Mind with the former as to the word Is being part of a Proposition but tells us moreover (k) Instit Log. li. 1. cap. 27. that it is a part of the Predicate and indeed the very Form and Soul of it Which he proves by a thing that is agreed on among the differing Parties even that the word Is when included in another Verb is part of the Predicate For if saith he the word Is when included in another Verb is part of the Predicate why shall it not be a part of the Predicate when it is set by it self Which with the Instance which he subjoins and another Reason for it I shall leave to the Logicians of the other side to answer But beside that more remote Objection of the Copula's being no part of a Proposition and therefore the figurativeness of the present ones not to be placed there It is farther added that this Copula or the word Is is a word of no certain signification in it self For I forbear the mention of that hard Name which the Logicians give it whereas Tropes and Figures can have place only in words of certain signification because altering them from their native signification to a foreign one And it must be granted that the word Is is so far forth of an uncertain signification that it may and is wont to be appli'd to several sorts of Predications and particularly to such as are only accidental as well as to those that are essential For thus we may and do affirm that Socrates for instance is of this or that Colour which denotes only an Accident as well as
to do or as referring only to that Body and Blood which immediately precede them In which last Consideration of them is made appear that the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may as well and more naturally signifie make That there is nothing in the present Argument to determine it to the notion of Sacrificing or if there were that it must import rather a Commemorative than Expiatory one What is alledg'd by the same Council from Christ's Melchizedekian Priesthood c. more briefly consider'd and answer'd And that Sacrifice which the Council advanceth shewn in the close to be inconsistent with it self contrary to the present state of our Lord and Saviour and more derogatory to that Sacrifice which Christ made of himself upon the Cross The whole concluded with enquiring To whom this Sacrament ought to be administred and particularly whether it either ought or may lawfully be administred to Infants Where the Arguments of Bishop Taylor for the lawfulness of Communicating Infants are produc'd and answer'd and particularly what he alledgeth from Infants being admitted to Baptism though they are no more qualified for it than they are for the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper V. THE nature of this Sacrament being thus unfolded and the Minds of Men so far forth imbued with a due apprehension of it I might with the leave of that Catechism which I have taken upon me to explain proceed to that which is the last in order even to shew What is requir'd of them who come to the Lord's Supper But because unless it be rightly administred it cannot be rightly receiv'd or at least not with that advantage which men might otherwise promise to themselves from it And because those with whom we have to do in this Affair differ as much from us about the Administration of this Sacrament as they do about the Nature of it I think it but reasonable so far forth as those differences or the nature of the thing shall lead me to it to make that also the subject of my Discourse and accordingly enquire first how it ought to be administred and then to whom it ought to be so I. Now there are two things again which will be necessary to be enquir'd into as concerning the manner of its Administration 1. Whether that Bread wherewith this Sacrament is celebrated ought to be broken 2. Whether he who administers this Sacrament is oblig'd by the words of the Institution or otherwise to make an Offering unto God of Christ's Body and Blood as well as make a tender of the Sacrament thereof to Men. 1. Whether that Bread wherewith this Sacrament is celebrated ought to be broken is a Question between us and the Lutherans who look upon the breaking of it as no otherwise necessary than as the Bread which we employ may make it to be so for the distribution of it Agreeably to which Opinion of theirs they furnish themselves with such small round Wafers as require no breaking at all and communicate both themselves and their People with them We on the other side led thereto as we suppose by the Institution of Christ have a quite different opinion of it and do not only think it necessary for the distribution of larger Loaves but so far forth at least as a divine Precept can make it such necessary also as a Sacramental Act and for the better representation of the usage of that Body of Christ which it was intended to denote Which Opinion of ours we are farther confirmed in by what we learn from the care that was used by the Jews in the breaking of that Eucharistical Bread of theirs which seems to have been the Exemplar of ours By the Scriptures and the Antients representing the whole of this Sacrament under the title of breaking of Bread and by S. Paul's intimating the Bread which they brake to be as much the Communion of Christ's Body as the Cup of Blessing which they then bless'd was the Communion of his Blood A Man would think that they who stand out against the force of these Arguments should be provided of sufficient Answers to them and not only so but of sufficient Arguments too to strengthen their own Opinion But whether either the one or the other are of that force which they are supposed to be of shall be permitted to judgment after I have taken a view of them To begin with the Answers * Vid. Geâ—â— hard Loc. Theolog. Tract de Sacr. Coen cap. 14. which they return to the former Arguments and particularly with what they answer to what is urg'd from the Institution of Christ Where they tell us in the first place that though Christ brake the Bread and may so far forth perhaps be thought to prescribe the like to those that were to administer the Sacrament after him Yet it was rather in order to the distribution of it the Bread then us'd requiring him so to do than to represent the breaking of his own Body But beside that what they affirm in the former part of it is said without any other proof than that the Bread then us'd requir'd breaking in order to the distribution of it For as to any thing they advance to the contrary Christ might break the Bread for representation as well as for distribution St. Paul hath said enough to shew that Christ brake the Bread of this Sacrament to represent the ill usage of his Body There being not any tolerable reason why St. Paul should in the very History of the Institution attribute so improper a term as that of breaking to Christ's Body but that the breaking of the Bread which was a Figure of it was intended to denote that violence which was offer'd to his crucified one That Answer not succeeding they flie unto another and tell us that the words Do this referr principally to what the Apostles were to do in the present Action amongst which the breaking of Bread being not then to be because the Bread was before broken to their hands the Command of Do this is not to be thought to extend properly and principally to the breaking of the Bread but to the taking and eating of it It is a strange thing to see how Prejudice will cast a mist before wise Mens Eyes and prompt them to say that for the defence of their Opinions in one thing which will do them as much mischief in another For the very same Argument mutatis mutandis will serve alike to overthrow that blessing of the Bread which they as well as we think themselves obliged to maintain as without which indeed it can be no part of the present Sacrament For if the words Do this are to be thought to extend no farther than to what the Apostles were to do in that Sacrament which they celebrated with our Saviour then are they of as little force to conclude the blessing of the Bread before we eat it because the Bread was at that time as much blessed to their hands as it is affirmed to have
to be eaten by the Houshold (c) Exo. 12. ◠of which the younger Infants to be sure were no way capable And it appears from a Passage in Josephus (d) Jud. Antiqu. li. 12. cap. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. that no one that was born was to taste of any Sacrifice till he came to the Temple which we learn from the instance of our Saviour (e) Luke 2.42 Grot. in loc not to have been till they were twelve Years of Age. At or after which time they might be in a capacity to enquire into the meaning of their Paschal Service and receive a due information concerning it Which instead of justifying the communicating of Infants will rather overthrow it and perswade the deferring of it till they be of understanding to consider the nature of the Sacrament and prepare themselves in some measure for the receiving of it One only Argument remains for the administring of this Sacrament to Infants even the long and general practice of the Antient Church in this particular and the like general practice at this day of the Greeks Aethiopians Bohemians and Moravians All which to condemn of Errour may seem a little hard as we must do unless we will at least allow of the lawfulness of the Practice whatsoever we do of the necessity thereof But as I must needs say that I do not see how we can acquit them for Errour considering what hath been before said against the Communion of Infants So I a little wonder how he should stick at the condemnation of the thing it self who so freely acknowledg'd the Practice to be built upon a Text which he himself confesseth to have been mistaken by them The utmost in my opinion that is to be said in behalf of the Antients and accordingly of those Churches which derive their Practice from them is that the Communicating of Infants was an Errour of their charity toward them and whom whilst they were willing to deliver from that Original Corruption wherein they were born and bring them to Christ's Kingdom and Happiness they did not only conferr upon them the Sacrament of Baptism which they had learn'd from the words of our Saviour (f) Mark 10.13 the Doctrine of St. Paul (g) 1 Cor. 7.14 and the Circumcision of the Jewish Infants to be but proper for them but mistaking what our Saviour spake in St. John concerning the necessity of eating his Flesh and drinking his Blood for the necessity of a Sacramental Manducation gave them this Sacrament also so the better to secure them of eternal Life and Heaven For as for that Salvo of the Council of Trent (h) Sess 21. cap. 4. that the Antients gave them the Sacrament of the Eucharist out of some probable and temporary Reasons and not out of a Belief of the necessity thereof unto Salvation or the like Salvo of Mr. Thorndike * Epil to the Trag. of the Ch. of Engl. li. 1. cap. 23. who agreeably to the same Opinion makes them look upon that Text in St. John as sufficiently answer'd by the Sacrament of Baptism and their partaking of Christ's Body and Blood in it It is so contrary to the Doctrine of the Antients and particularly to that of St. Cyprian (i) Cypr. Test ad Quirin li. 3. cap. 27. Pope Innocent (k) Epist 93. apud August and St. Augustine in many places of his Works that it is not a little to be wondred at that so learned a Man as Mr. Thorndike could advance so groundless an Assertion For though it be true that St. Cyprian where he makes it his Business to shew that none can enter into the Kingdom of God unless he be baptiz'd and born again doth not only alledge that Text for it (l) Joh. 3.5 which doth more immediately concern it but that unless Men eat Christ's Flesh and drink Christ's Blood they shall have no Life in them Yet that he did not intend thereby their receiving that Body and Blood in Baptism but in the Sacrament of the Eucharist and only made use of that Text as proving Baptism â fortiori because enforcing the necessity of a Sacrament which was to be administred after it is evident from his beginning his next Testimony or Christian Doctrine with these very words That it was a small matter to be baptiz'd and receive the Eucharist unless a Man profit in good Works For how comes the Eucharist to be join'd with Baptism in Testimonies that depend so upon one another but that he had spoken of it just before and consequently meant no other than that Eucharist by eating Christ's Flesh and drinking his Blood according as is but just before alledg'd In like manner though Pope Innocent to shew the foolishness of the Pelagians in affirming that little Children could have eternal Life without Baptism make use of these very words to prove it For unless they shall eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood they shall have no Life in them Yet whosoever shall consider what he saith as it is worded by himself will find that he did not at all intend their receiving the Flesh and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of Baptism but in the Sacrament of the Eucharist and that he esteem'd that Sacrament to be as necessary as the former and intended to prove the necessity of Baptism by the necessity of that Sacrament which was to follow it For thus he in his Epistle to the Fathers of the Milevitan Council Now that which your Brotherhood affirms them to preach that little Children may have their rewards of eternal Life even without the Grace of Baptism is extreamly foolish For unless they shall eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood they shall not have Life in them For what was this but to say that they should be so far from having eternal Life without the Grace of Baptism that they could not by the Dispensation of the Gospel attain that Life without the Grace of the Eucharist also Agreeable hereto is the Doctrine of St. Augustine as appears from this following Testimony (m) De peccat merit Rem li. 4. cap. 24. Where having said that by an Antient and Apostolical Tradition as he thought the Churches of Christ were intimately perswaded that without Baptism and the participation of the Lord's Table none could come to the Kingdom of God and eternal Life and confirm'd that Opinion of theirs and his own by Scriptures peculiar to each Sacrament and particularly as to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper by that so much celebrated saying of our Saviour Vnless ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man c. he hath these following words If therefore as so many and so great Divine Testimonies do agree neither Salvation nor Life can be hoped for by any one without Baptism and the Body and Blood of Christ in vain is it promised to little Children without them even without
those two Sacraments which he had before intreated of and which he affirms in the next words the guilt of that sin in Children to be loosed by concerning which the Scripture affirms that no one is free from it though his Life be but of a days continuance PART XI How the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ought to be receiv'd The Contents The receit of this Sacrament suppos'd by the present Question and that therefore first established against the Doctrine of those who make the supposed Sacrifice thereof to be of use to them who partake not Sacramentally of it Enquiry next made How we ought to prepare our selves for it how to demean our selves at the celebration of it and in what Posture to receive it The preparation taken notice of by our Catechism the Examination of our selves whether we truly repent us of our sins stedfastly purposing to lead a new Life c. and the both necessity and means of that Examination accordingly declar'd The examination of our Repentance more particularly insisted upon and that shewn to be most advantageously made by enquiring how we have gain'd upon those sins which we profess to repent of and particularly upon our most prevailing ones which how they are to be discover'd is therefore enquir'd into and the marks whereby they are to be known assigned and explain'd A transition from thence to the examination of the stedfastness of our Purposes to lead a new Life of our Faith in God through Christ our remembrance of his Death and Charity Where the necessity of that Examination is evinced and the means whereby we may come to know whether we have those Qualifications in us discover'd and declar'd How we ought to demean our selves at the celebration of this Sacrament in the next place enquir'd into and that shewn to be by intending that Service wherewith it is celebrated and suiting our Affections to the several parts of it The whole concluded with enquiring in what posture of Body this Sacrament ought to be receiv'd Where is shewn first that the Antients so far as we can judge by their Writings receiv'd in a posture of Adoration and particularly in the posture of standing Secondly that several of the Reformed Churches receive in that or the like posture and that those that do not do not condemn those that do Thirdly that there is nothing in the Example of Christ and his Disciples at the first Celebration of this Supper to oblige us to receive it sitting nor yet in what is alledg'd from the suitableness of that Posture to a Feast and consequently to the present one This as it is a Feast of a different nature from common ones and therefore not to receive Laws from them so the receit thereof intended to express the grateful resentment we have of the great Blessing of our Redemption and stir up other Men to the like resentment of it Neither of which can so advantageously be done as by receiving the Symbols of this Sacrament in such a posture of Body as shews the regard we have for him who is the Author of it VI. THE sixth and last Question proposed to be discoursed of Question What is requir'd of them who come to the Lord's Supper Answer To examin themselves whether they repent them truly of their former sins stedfastly purposing to lead a new Life have a lively Faith in God's mercy through Christ with a thankful remembrance of his Death and be in charity with all men is How this Sacrament ought to be receiv'd Which Question I have proposed in those terms partly that it may come so much the nearer to the last Question of our own Catechism and partly because there is no one sort of Men that doth expresly deny that it ought to be receiv'd by all that are qualified for it as well as administred by those who are the proper Stewards of it For though the Socinians out of a belief of Baptism's being proper only to Jewish or Gentile Converts have thrown off that Sacrament altogether and which is more have represented the shewing forth of Christ's Death as the only design of this yet they have thought fit to retain the use of it as a thing enjoin'd by our Lord himself Though the Tridentine Fathers have also in a great measure transform'd this Sacrament into a thing of another nature and accordingly pointed out other ways for Men to receive benefit by it beside their communicating at it Yet they have declar'd an Anathema (a) Sess 13. Can. 9. against any one that shall deny all and singular the faithful People of Christ to be oblig'd when they come to years of discretion to communicate every year at least at Easter according to the Precept of holy Mother the Church Only because those Fathers seem to found even that single Communion upon the Precept of the Church or at least do not represent it as enjoin'd by any Divine Law And because though they elsewhere profess to wish that they who assist at their several Masses did also Sacramentally communicate at them for their receiving greater benefit by them (b) Sess 22. cap. 6. yet they represent even those where the Priest alone Communicates as common to them that do not I think it not amiss to premise something concerning the obligation of the Faithful to receive this Sacrament as well as to assist at the celebration of it and examine what those Fathers alledge for their loosing the Faithful from it That the Faithful are under an obligation of receiving this Sacrament as well as of assisting at the celebration of it is so evident from the words of the Institution that I know not how our Saviour could have more expresly enjoin'd it For Take Eat saith he concerning the Bread of it And Drink ye all of it saith the same Jesus concerning the Cup With this farther Reason as we learn from the Hoc est enim corpus meum and Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei in the Roman Missal because the one is his Body and the other as certainly the Cup of his Blood as that Missal expresseth it So that if a Command with so substantial a Reason annex'd may be concluded to be obligatory the receit of this Sacrament is And we can no more be freed from doing it than we can be freed from believing that it is Christ's Body and Blood that is tender'd to us or believing it than we may reject so signal a Blessing as that is which was either broken or shed for our Redemption For what is this but as the Author to the Hebrews speaks (c) Heb. 10.28 29. to despise not Moses's Law but one the transgression whereof is worthy of a sorer punishment yea to tread under foot the Son of God and count the Blood of the Covenant wherewith we are sanctified an unholy thing and as such contemptuously to reject it Neither will it avail to say as possibly it may be that they cannot be look'd upon as despisers