Saint Luke relates that Iesus Christ began his last supper That after that he took bread in his hands and blessing the Divine Majestie brake it and then gave it to every one that was present at the banquet telling them that it was the bread which their fathers had eaten in Egypt That for the Close of the Repast he took again the Cup and presenting the Wine said that it was the fruit of the Vine and the blood of the Grape Terms borrowed of the old Testament Gen. 49. 11. and Deut. 32. 14. and to which our Saviour made allusion when giving the Wine he said that it was Blood Whereupon is to be observed in what the last Cup is different from the first Also why Christ blessed not the Wine and Bread both together but the bread by it self a-part and so the Wine That in this Feast there was a Dish composed of Raysins and other Fruits bruised and beaten together season'd with vinegar and made clammie like unto clay in remembrance of the Bricks of Egypt wherein they dipp'd their bread It may be it was the platter wherein Judas his sop was dip'd That the washing of Feet frequent among those of the East was not practis'd at the end of all Feasts but only in that of the Passeover From thence it comes that after Supper Iesus Christ washed the feet of his Disciples That their Custom was to close this Action with the singing of Psalmes the 113 and the 114. which is without doubt that Hymn which Iesus Christ and his Disciples sang before they went forth That speaking of the Passeover they oftentimes give it a name which signifies Annunciation which is the Term which St Paul transfers to the holy Supper when he saith Ye shall Shew the Lords death Without these observations drawn from the Ecclesiastical discipline of the Jews it is impossible to attain to a perfect understanding of the actions of Iesus Christ in the Institution of the Eucharist But the sence of his words touching his Body and his Blood ought to be drawn from a higher Fountain CHAP. VI. Necessary suppositions for the understanding of the words of Jesus Christ in the Supper THat which Iesus Christ said touching the Communion of his Body and of his Blood all that I say depends on certain Maximes which our Lord hath laid for a Basis and Foundation of this Communion Now there are very few people which observe these suppositions without which neverthelesse it is impossible to understand fully the Terms of the Son of God and to know the importance of them The words of the Institution advertise us that this Sacrament is a New Covenant in as much as it is the Seal of it and by consequence that it contains or presupposes articles quite new quite different from those which are contained in the old For we must know that the old Testament speaking of the Blood of the Covenant of the effusion of it for the remission of sins and of the flesh of the expiatory Sacrifice Symboles of the Body and of the Blood of Christ did contain certain Ordinances which prohibited that which Iesus Christ commands us in the Eucharist Let us retain this carefully That which the Son of God commands us to do in the Supper is founded upon Maximes opposit to those of the old Testament And in this opposition consists the Foundation and the Life of the words of Iesus Christ I conclude then that it is impossible without the conferring of these clauses carried through the two Testaments to construe exactly the mysterious words of the Institution Further Let not men think that here I mean to bring in Allegories For the relations and differences between the old and new Testament are not Allegoricall And if any one will call them by that name let him know that without such Allegories he shall never understand perfectly what Iesus Christ had a minde to say For these words the Testament the Blood of the Testament the Eating of the Flesh given for us the effusion of Blood for the remission of sins are terms of the Mosaicall Law It is therefore necessary to learn that which the Law ordained touching the communication of the Flesh and Blood destined to the expiation of sinners and compare this Ordinance with that of Iesus Christ in the Supper This will furnish me with an answer to those who would impose upon me to have here introduced matters estranged from the subject of the Eucharist under colour of being far removed from their own thoughts The considerations which I have to produce are immediately fastened to the words of the holy Supper and shew to what properly Iesus Christ had regard unto in pronouncing them as we shall see hereafter On the contrary many treat of the Eucharist who imbroyle it with an infinite number of other points whilst they omit a good part of the true substance of the Sacramentall words whereof they never expresse the entire sence None here refuseth to hear spoken of demon strative pronounes of a verb substantive of a subject and of an attribute of synecdoches of Metanomyes and other scholastick Terms which serve only for the grammaticall understanding Why then shall the proper names of things which Iesus Christ aimed at in the Eucharist be reputed strangers in this matter The new Testament and the old the blood shed for our sin and the blood of legall expiations the eating of the flesh of Christ and the eating of offerings are terms correlative in the words of the Eucharist and do answer one another with a loud voice The understanding of the one depends on the knowledge of the other CHAP. VII A preparatory question to the following Considerations THere is none but knowes that our Saviour explained himself more formally when he spoke of his blood in presenting the Cup and when he spoke of his body in giving the bread For these last words expound the former and teach us in what quality his body is produced unto us and given in the Eucharist namely in as much as it is the sacrifice of the new Testament offered for the remission of our sins Now these words expresse the subject and the cause of our Communion with him For it is not enough to know that we have the body of Christ to eat and his blood to drink we ought to know the reason and the vertue of it Otherwise we shall never understand the point of the Eucharist This reason is manifest Our Saviour in the 26 chapter of St Matthew speaks thus touching the Cup Drink ye all of it For this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins But there are but few who know the meaning of Iesus Christ and wherein consists the knot and connexion of his purpose That we ought to drink his blood Because it is the blood of the new Testament shed for the remission of our sins And likewise why from the oblation of his body do we conclude
the eating of it What is the consequence of the one to the other Here we have many excellent mysteries contained in these words of Iesus Christ to discover The Second Sect. CHAP. I. The first Consideration on the words of Jesus Christ in the Supper DIvines affirm that Iesus Christ knowing the Law which forbids eating of blood hath expresly mentioned a new Covenant which obligeth us to drink his blood In which he maketh the two Testaments to oppose one the other The one which forbids the eating of blood the other which commands the drinking of blood But I observe one point which is not so common although very notable touching the reason by which Iesus Christ invites us to drink his blood There is a Law in the 17 of Leviticus verse 11 and 12 which we must compare with the Ordinance of Iesus Christ in the 26 of Saint Matthew The Law saith Jesus Christ saith I have given you the blood to offer upon the Altar to make an atonement for your souls for it is the blood which shall make an atonement for the soul It is shed for the remission of sins and therefore I said to the children of Israel none among you shall eat blood Drink ye all of it For this is my blood of the new Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins This Comparison shewes that Iesus Christ commanding to drink his blood imploys the same reason for which it was forbidden to eat any blood at all The Law saith eat no blood for it is shed for the remission of your sins Jesus Christ saith drink blood for it is shed for the remession of your sins It is then expedient for us to drink his blood for the same reason which seems to forbid it us From whence comes it that the prohibition of the Law and the Commandement of Christ are found to be built on the same foundation Why doth the same cause which obligeth men to abstain from blood oblige us to participate of it How can one and the same reason serve to two contraries that it should be forbidden to eat blood because it is expiatory and commanded to drink the blood becaus it is expiatory Some will tell us that we must distinguish between blood and blood between that of Christ and that of living creatures between the spirituall perception of the one and the corporal eating of the other between the typical expiations and the reall expiations That Moses spake of a blood which was but a Seal and Symbole of expiaation and on the contrary Iesus Christ proposes unto us a blood by which expiation hath been made That the one speaks of an eating which was done by the mouth the other of a reception which is in the soul And that thus they are two different reasons But all this takes not away the difficulty the question remains still For behold what I have to say thereupon The Law forbids to partake of blood because it is the seal of the remission of sins And Jesus Christ commands to partake of the cup because it is the seal of the remission of sins Why do two so contrary consequences result from the same quality The precedent distinction hath no place here Moreover we must know that the Law speaking of the blood of living creatures which it says to be expiatory considers this blood in the union or correspondence it hath with that of Christ which alone is truely expiatory So that forbidding the corporall eating of the signe that hath relation to the blood of Christ the same forbidding touches the spiritual Communion of the blood of Christ represented by the signe Truely the tearms by which they expresse the cause of the Commandment are equivalent to those by which the Law expresseth the reason of the prohibition And 't is not without some great reason that the Son of God commanding to drink his blood would speak as the Law doth when it prohibits the eating of blood We shall therefore see from whence is derived this injunction on us to drink the blood of the new Covenant by the same reason which forbids us to eat that of the old But for as much as this question is linked with many other points we ought to propose them conjoyntly before we dissolve the difficulties Behold then another which ought carefully to be considered as being the center of this matter and the last of the words of Iesus Christ in the Supper CHAP. II. The Second Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ VVE speak of eating the Body which was given for our sins Many Orthodox Divines have these terms in their mouths who know not their importance nor to what Iesus Christ had regard in uttering them It is a RULE in the old Testament That a man cannot eat of that which is offered for him for the remission of his sins It is I say a point of Divine Right and a fundamentall clause of the first Testament That none can eat of that which is offered for the remission of his sins The same flesh cannot be our attonement and our nourishment These are terms which the Law declares incompatible And nevertheless against this Maxime Iesus Christ commands us to eat his Body Sacrificed for our sins his body I say represented by expiatory oblations whose eating was forbidden This here is one of the highest mysteries of Religion and the foundation of the Sacrament of the Eucharist Every one knowes that the old Testament had two sorts of Sacrifices distinguished by the ends to which they were offered The one the Eucharistick the other the Expiatory The one for the Benefits of God the other for the Evil deeds of man Now concerning the Eucharistick Sacrifice all those for whom it was by name offered had a right also to eat of it This meat sanctified by the Altar and distinguished from common nourishments was a most favoury Mess unto them as being sent from Gods Table for an earnest of that Communion which they had with him And we even there meet with an admirable correspondence with the subject of the holy Supper For by the Rule of the Law the flesh of such Sacrifices ought to be eaten either the same day it was sacrificed or the day after But on the third day it was not permitted to eat of it It is an axiome of the old Testament That no Sacrifice should be eaten on the third day Levit. 7. verse 16 17 18. This Law seems to have an eye upon the eating of the flesh of Christ which is meat to us in as much as dead for us For he exhibits unto us his body but in as much as broken So that the object of this eating is Jesus Christ in as much as dead Now for as much as the third day which is that of his Resurrection represents him unto us living the Sacrifices by which he was represented dead might not be eaten the third day But the Sacrifice which was offered for the expiation of sins was
Jesus Christ in the Supper SINCE Jesus Christ speaks of a Testament whose last seal is the Eucharist a Christian ought to learn what this Testament is for to know the importance of the seal which we see put to it and principally it is necessary to have regard to that which Jesus Christ said thereof when he instituted the Supper For he advertiseth us that this Testament is New that is to say succeeds another which is abolished by this latter Moreover that this Testament is with the Blood of the Testator that is to say that he died in this last Will. Now I omit to shew why he would make a second Testament and if there wanted any thing in the first it will suffice to observe thence that the first Testament was of no force in comparison of the second For a Testament hath no vertue during the life of the Testator nor can it send forth its effect unless the death of the Testator intervene Hebrews 9. v. 16 17. So that the Old Testament had no force in its time because that Jesus Christ was not yet dead But the Testament which we have at this day hath been made efficatious by the death of the Testator Some Jew who cannot perswade himself that God would abolish the first Covenant by a second that which nevertheless he ought to have learned of Jeremiah 31. v. 31 c. will tell us that this will make us doubt whether or no there shall be yet a third But this is no reason For the Covenant of God was conceived in form of a Testament or of a donation by reason of Death Now the Testator being once dead there is no place for another Testament The last Will wherein he died remaines irrevocable for ever Finally there is this thing extraordinary that death permitting none to be executor of his own Testament Jesus Christ contrarily is come from death to life for to execute his forasmuch as none was capable of this charge For he is risen again for our justification Rom. 4. v. 25. CHAP. XIIII The sixth Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ MY Blood saith he is shed for the remission of sins We know that his death ought to be bloody according to the Maxime which says that there is no remission of sins made without effusion of blood Hebrewes 9. Now we demand not here why this remission could not be obtained otherwise that is to say why it behoved that the death of our Saviour should not onely be violent but also be marked with blood Nevertheless that which I have to observe thereupon deserves to be considered Death which is the wages of sin began by effusion of blood The first that ever died which was Abel died of a bloody death As then the blood of man hath been the first fruits of death so also was it the conclusion and destruction of it Death began by blood and ended by blood Between this first blood which was shed upon the Earth and the Blood of the Son of God there is a very remarkable opposition touched by the Apostle to the Hebrewes Chapter 12. to wit that the Blood of Sprinkling which is that of Jesus Christ speaks better things then that of Abel For this cried out for the the punishment of sin but the other cries for the remission of sins It is also observable that the same man who died first of all is also the first in the holy History who had sacrificed with blood For he was the first that offered the flesh and fat of living Creatures Genesis 4. 4. So the first who felt death brought forth by sin is also the first who offered the bloody Oblation whereby we should be delivered from sin which is the sting of death Finally The Jews who think it strange that the Blood of a Man is our Expiation have nevertheless an imagination which cannot subsist but upon this principle That there must be an humane Sacrifice to wipe away the sins of man They beleeve that God will give them grace in contemplation of the obedience of Isaac who exposed himself voluntarily to be sacrificed And they have prayers wherein they alledge the merit of this Sacrifice as a foundation of the Redemption which they expect Now as for the offering of this Patriarch if it had been capable to expiate the sins of his Off-spring even of those who live at this day why after this Sacrifice of Isaac should there be yet need of so many expiatory Sacrifices To what purpose hath the Law which is since given imposed upon them Sacrifices for the obtaining of pardon But to speak no more of it Isaac was not sacrificed in effect and his blood was not shed in this Oblation Which shews that it is not expiatory For without an actual effusion of blood no remission of sins at all is made The Law tells them that it is blood which makes expiation for the Soul Lev. 17. CHAP. XV. The seventh Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ THE Institution of this Sacrament is comprised in few words whereof not one is vain For Jesus Christ hath said nothing which contains not some great point Now above all things he shewes what is the vertue and dignity of the Blood which he presents unto us and this in four divers respects to wit 1. That it is his own Blood the Blood of the Son of God 2. That it is the Blood of the New Covenant 3. That this Blood purchases unto us remission of sins 4. That this Blood is shed for many As for this last amongst many other matters therein contained I think that our Lord would yet touch upon a difference also between the Blood of the Old Testament and that of the New In the Old Testament the Blood of the Sacrifice was sometimes employed only for the expiation of one man among the people who had need of a particular sacrifice Now this Sacrifice which was offred but for one man alone was many wayes inferiour to that which was offred for many that is to say for the Multitude or for all the Church Principally in this that the Blood shed in Sacrifice for one man alone never came into the Holy Place But that did which was shed for the multitude Jesus Christ therefore advertiseth us that his Blood was shed for many for the Multitude to the end that we might know that his Blood hath penetrated the Holy Places and hath opened them Hebr. 9. v. 12. And in this also is the New Testament more excellent than the Old For the Blood of the Old Testament did not alwayes enter within the Holy Place Moreover the Blood of the Old Testament which was shed for one man alone was not sufficient even to Expiate legally all the sins of such a man but onely a particular offence for which by name there wholly needed a Sacrifice On the contrary the Blood of the New Testament was not onely shed for many men but hath also Expiated universally all the sins of
every one of them So that if one of my sins hath been Expiated in this Blood all my other sins have there their Expiation also for it is generall and entire So then the termes of the Institution if wee know how to weigh them cause us to know that Jesus Christ hath sounded all the profundities of the Old Testament and drawes from thence those points which shew the excellency and advantages of the New by comparing them together CHAP. XVI The eighth Consideration upon the words of the holy Supper I Intend not to reiterate that which hath been so much written how the Bread is the Body of Christ but onely to observe something upon a question which is common enough viz. Why our Lord did not ordain Flesh rather than Bread for to represent his Body For it seems that this Symbole should be more analogick and significative According to the saying of many it is forasmuch as Flesh hath served in old time in the Sacrifices and in the Passeover and that it behoves that the Sacraments of the Christian Church should be of other Elements than those that have served under the Law But this answer is ill grounded for 1. The Bread and Wine were also used in Sacrifices There was by name an Oblation of Bread and Wine Numb 15. not to speak of the Shew-bread and of the Offerings of Cakes 2. The Element of Water served for Legall purifications Under the Law there was nothing so ordinary as the washing with Water to signifie the clensing of the Soul Yet neverthelesse God would that Baptism should be with Water 3. The contrary is rather true and this is that also which some ancient Fathers say of it That in this action Jesus Christ useth Bread and Wine because that these Elements had already been used under the Law to represent his Body and his Blood And this to the end we should know that it is the same Christ represented by the same signes But why then hath not the Flesh of living Creatures as well place in the Sacrament of the Eucharist sith it hath represented Christ in that of the Passeover and in so many kinds of Sacrifices We say indeed that Christ hath rather chosen Bread because it is the most common and the most nourishing food and so most proper to represent his Body But this excludes not other reasons which we may give thereof Moreover the Eucharist represents not the Body of Jesus Christ simply as nourishment but also as dead Now some may say which neverthelesse is not without contradiction that the Death of Christ was in Old time more ocularly represented by the killing of a Lamb than at this day by the breaking of Bread So it is this is the point I am to handle that Jesus Christ instituting signs of his Dead Body and of his Blood shed did choose things without life and Elements wherein there was no Blood Whereby he would shew that after him no creature should any more lose his life for the sins of man and that no other Blood should be shed in Expiation For the Sacraments of the Old Testament were Bloody to denote the Blood which was to be shed by the death of Christ But this effusion being made the Sacraments which represent it as done and accomplished are without effusion of Blood to shew that there shall be no more Blood shed for sins Hence it is wee have no more a Sacrament which requires the killing of any creature but Signes wherein death doth not intervene as being of themselves without life and of another substance than of Flesh and Blood CHAP. XVII The ninth Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ MEn principally the common people do naturally love Similitudes because they are drawn from things perceptible to the senses or otherwise common and easie to be conceived But similitudes represent not the essence of a subject and doe not say what a thing is but what it resembles So our Lord would not tell us simply that his Body had resemblance unto Bread nor onely that the Bread is a Seal unto us of the Communion of his Body but also hath shewed us the causes and qualities of this Communion These words To eat the Body of Jesus Christ signifie not onely to take it for the Sustenance of our Souls as we take food for the nourishment of our Bodyes This Similitude if we specifie no more teacheth us but very generally the nature of this Communion and doth not set forth the entire sense of the words of Jesus Christ For in the Eucharist our Lord doth not propound himself as Flesh in generall but as Flesh sacrifised for our sins which is a point of great consequence in this matter I have already said that the word Eating is attributed to the Cōmunion of the body of Christ which is as much as to say that this Communion is in substance that which was in Figure the eating of Sacrifices of the Manna of the Passeover c. And namely that in this Communion we have that which the Law forbad us to wit the eating of the Flesh offred for our sins They who content themselves with the generall similitudes between the Food of the Body and the nourishment of the Soul attain not unto the specifick difference of the subject of the Eucharist But I have yet somewhat to say of an abuse which is committed in the deduction of this Similitude For as many omit that which is contained in the words of the holy Supper so there are some I speak even of Orthodox Divines who adde thereto something of their own CHAP. XVIII The tenth Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ in the Supper WEe know that wee ought not to carry a Similitude beyond its end For when two divers things are compared to one another it is never in all and through all but onely in some regard When for example our Lord in St. Matth. 13. v. 46. compares the kingdome of Heaven to a Pearl of great price his intention is but to express the greatness of the value and richness of the Gospell Now he that would under pretence of this word Pearl dispute philosophically of all the kinds and proprieties of Pearls search of what matter they are made and how they are formed and subtilly fit all this to the kingdome of Heaven would surpasse the bounds wherein Jesus Christ hath confined the similitude For he doth not in all qualities compare the kingdome of Heaven to a Pearl but onely in the price or esteem which men have of it Notwithstanding there are few found among those who expound the Scriptures who keep themselves within these limits There are even of those who regard no measure when they handle a comparison If our Saviour say that he is a Vine they will name all sorts of Vines and their differences and tell you what territory is proper to them when they are to bee planted how they are to be pruned and kept Also what are the parts of
called Jod St. Paul 1 Cor. 16. v. 22. denounceth Maranatha against whomsoever loved not the Lord Jesus This was the term of the greater Excommunication used among the Jews The Scribes and interpreters of the Law had the Key of the Chests and Archives where were kept the sacred books To this our Saviour makes allusion when he upbraids them with having withdrawn the Key of knowledge and not to have entred into it When a Doctor of the Law was created they spake to him after this manner as the Rabbines relate it Receive the Authority to pronounce bound whatsoever shall be bound and to pronounce unbound whatsoever shal be unbound This explains the words of Jesus Christ speaking to his Disciples whom he would constitute Doctors That which yee bind on earth shal be bound in Heaven and that which ye shall unbind on earth shal be unbound in Heaven In the 3. of the Revel Jesus Christ promiseth to them that shall overcome that they shall walk with him in white Rayments These White rayments say we are the token of purity and innocence But some learned men have observed that this term was taken from a formality used among the Jews when any one was installed into the Priesthood For the Councill having examined the genealogy and other qualities required in him who pretended to this charge if he were judged incapable they sent him back clad with a black robe to signify that he was rejected from the Altar But if he gained his cause they clad him with a white robe which was the habit of the Priests and he entred the Temple with his Colleagues Our Saviour seems to have a regard to this Custom when hee promises the white Garment to those whom he made Priests and assures them that they shall walk with him Revel 1. v. 6. IIII. Examples of the fourth Order In St. Mathew 5. v. 41. Jesus Christ saith if any one compell thee to goe a mile c. where the word translated Compell signifies to constrain one to run post The word came from the Persians who called those Angari whom wee call Posts or Posters In the Revel 2. v. 17. the white stone is taken from the manner whereby the Greeks and the antient Romans gave their voyces in Criminall Judgements The black stone was the mark of Condemnation The white of the contrary I omit the similitudes drawn from the Istthmian sports and the like viz. from the Race from the Wrastling from the Combates of the Amphitheatre and other Customs of the Greeks 1 Cor. 9. v. 24 c. chap. 15. v. 32. In Revel 16. It is foretold that the River Euphrates should be dryed up that the way of the Kings and people of the East might be prepared It is an allusion to the Stratagem whereby Cyrus made himself master of the City of Babylon having diverted the River Euphrates by many little channels In divers places of the Revelation our Saviour expressing the beginning and the end of all things takes the name of Alpha and Omega which are the first and the last Letters of the Greek Alphabet V. Examples of the fift Order The phrase which imports that we are Crucified to the world is borrowed from the kind of death that Jesus Christ suffered Many things which are said properly of his person are transferred to his Church as when it is said that we shall come to the age of perfect man and the measure of the perfect stature of Christ In the 13. of St. Luke the Parable saith these three years I come seeking fruit of this fig tree and find none Some Chronologers observe that Jesus Christ makes allusion to the time of his ministry For when he pronounced these words he had already preached three years to the people of the Jews exhorting them to bear fruit CHAP. III. The term of eating used to signify the Communion of the Body of Christ is in the second Order of Figurative Speeches ONe and the same figure may be taken from divers matters and so one and the same phrase may be found in divers rancks in divers regards but in the one more properly than in the other The point it self for the understanding whereof I have laid down these distinctions will explain that which I intend to say When the Communion of the Body of Christ is expressed by the word of Eating this phrase is not simply and immediatly drawn from this act naturall and common to all men yea to other living Creatures whereby we take our nourishment but of the action of the Israelites communicating of the Flesh of Sacrifices and other sacred meats An action which was truly naturall Materially if we may so speak sith that it consisted in eating but Formally and properly it was a sacred action and a point of the Ceremoniall Law So that this speech to eat the Body of Christ is amongst those which are drawn from the matters of the Old Testament The which appears also not to repeat all that which I have said before in that Jesus Christ hath retained the terms of it For among others speaking of his Blood he explains himself after the manner of the words of Moses in Exod. 24. v. 8. Behold the Blood of the Covenant I shall conclude this with a very notable consideration CHAP. IV. Why doe the two Sacraments of the Christian Church consist the one in Washing the other in Nourishment WE use to say that these are two similitudes or analogies wherein our Saviour hath shut these two Sacramennts because that the washing and the eating represent very properly the application of Jesus Christ who is a spirituall washing and nourishment unto us But this reason goes not far enough in the intention of our Saviour The Water is employed in Baptism not simply because of its naturall propriety of washing and cleansing but for a more particular Reason Likewise the nutritive vertue which is in the Bread and in the Wine is not the onely cause nor the immediate cause wherefore they were chosen for signs of the Body and Blood of Christ We must therefore know that in the old time under the Law amongst the Acts which represented the Application of future Redemption there were two common and ordinary viz. Washing and Eating There were indeed but these two acts whereby the people participated of Holy things For they were exhibited to them either in Washing as the Water of sprinkling and the Blood wherewith they besprinckled unclean persons or in Nourishment as the Paschall Lamb the Flesh of Eucharistick Sacrifices and other food sanctified by the Law Also the Apostle to the Hebrews Chap. 9. v. 10. teacheth us that all these legall matters consisted either in washings or in meats and drinks Now this shews clearly why Jesus Christ hath Instituted the Sacraments to the number of two and why in these two manners above-said the one of Washing the other of Nourishment It is to the end that the same acts which had in times past represented the