Cross was a mark or token of malediction Gal. 3. 13. a quite contrary quality from that of the Altar which is to bless and to sanctifie 3. Also the holy Scripture speaking of the same Cross on which our transgressions were expiated never gives it the Title of Altar and the holy Ghost always abstains from this phrase although that in many places of the New Testament it seems to come much to the purpose 4. Men speak very inconsiderately to say that the Altar of Burnt-Offerings or that of Incense did represent the Cross on which Jesus Christ ought to be sacrificed There is more appearance that the Cross on which Jesus Christ was put was signified by the wood on which they placed their Victims And indeed Isaac carrying the wood on which he was to be sacrificed was a figure of Jesus Christ bearing the Cross on which he was to die CHAP. III. What is the Subject of the thoughts which Christians ought to have when they receive the holy Supper The Spiritual presence ill understood among the Vulgar TWo men shall produce an action of the same kind and the same quality in which nevertheless the one hath more noble thoughts then the other And for example both may give Almes with like sincerity of heart equall measure of charity and with the same resentment of affection and yet nevertheless in this act one carries more fair and rich conceptions So among many Christians who receive the Sacrament by faith and are carried to this action by motions tending to salvation there are som whose thoughts surpass those of others being more sublime and compleat and so of a higher dignity and which render them nearer to the bosome of Jesus Christ Now the most excellent thoughts which a Christian communicating at the Supper can have are those which Jesus Christ had and did suggest unto us in this action expressing them in words full of an incomparable richness To know then what cogitations are there required the words of Jesus Christ rightly understood will furnish us with the Subject of them But such a one presumes best to understand them who is not yet topick enough in every point appertaining to this matter For I let alone the superficial intelligence wherewith Ideots content themselves When they can say that as the bread nourishes our bodies so the flesh of Christ nourishes our souls they think they know enough Even so many do very ill understand this spiritual presence of Christ that is now so much disputed of Then when they present to themselves a man nailed to a Cross they imagin by this Idea Christ is made present to their thoughts and that in this act consists the participation of the body of Christ 'T is true we cannot call to mind his death and the manner of it but by conceiving such an object namely a humane body as it is painted in the history of the Passion his side being pierced and the bloud streaming from the wound c. But all this is but an historical representation much different from the spiritual communion of the body of Christ For when I represent unto my self Jesus Christ dying on the Cross in the most lively manner possible for me to do this figure or image which I have in my mind is not all this while Jesus Christ himself CHAP. III. A Brief of all that men teach touching the Point of the Lords Supper ALL that we consider in this Doctrin is reduced principally to these things The divers names by which this Sacrament is called It s Institution and the time of it The two Signes employed at this Table and the Censure of those who deny the Cup to the people The Analogie between the Bread and the Body of Christ between the Wine and the Blood The breaking of the one and the powring forth of the other with their signification The Thanksgiving or blessing by which Jesus Christ consecrated these Elements The difference between the corporal reception of the signe common both to the faithfull and the wicked and the Spirituall Communication of the Body of Christ peculiar to believers The examining of these words wherein we finde that there is a Figure the name of the thing signified being attributed to the Signe according to the ordinary custom of Sacramentall locutions That the substance of the Signes remain entire That the Body of Christ is not enclosed in the Bread of the Eucharist nor in any place of the earth That this bodily presence is not requisit to the true and reall Communication of it That this Communion is made by the efficacy of the Spirit on the behalf of Christ and by the Organ of Faith on our part That this Faith reacheth even unto Heaven and doth truely joyn us unto Christ That the end of this action is not there to make an Expiatory Sacrifice but a Commemoration of him That this Commemoration is not idle and vain but full of efficacy and affection That the Supper is unto us a Seal of a new Covenant an earnest of our Resurrection a tye of our Union with the Church and a Badge of our Profession To these are joyned the precepts which shew the preparatory Exercises the examination which every one ought to make of himself for to partake worthily of it and finally the acknowledgement or thanksgiving which we ought to make for it But as this matter is now almost all reduced to controversie the most part of those who undertake an exact description of all that may be said upon the Point of the Eucharist do make stop principally at those things which are in dispute And in this regard it is a hard matter to add to their writings having there neither question which they have not discussed error which they have not encountred difficulty which they have not cleared syllable which they have not culled argument which they have not pressed objection which they have not dissolved But we shall find that we may yet bring hither many other important considerations and without which this Doctrin cannot be compleat CHAP. V. Observations extracted out of the Jews Liturgie THey who have read the Books of the Rites of the ancient Jews have drawn from them some lights which shew the reason of many particulars expressed in the Institution of the Supper For the proceeding of Iesus Christ in the Eucharist answers to that which the Hebrews observe in the Passeover Now besides the Divine Laws which prescribe the form of this sacred Feast the Jews had Rules for those Circumstances which were not mentioned in the Law As for example Moses having pronounced nothing touching the Drink of this Solemn Feast their Ecclesiasticall Canons ordained that which was convenient for the Action They relate therefore among the ordinary Formalities of this Banquet That at the beginning the Master of the house took the Cup and praising God caused it to pass from hand to hand to the end that all who sat at the table might tast of it Thus
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
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 Priests for to bear the iniquity of the congregation to make an atonement for them before the Lord. Lev. 10. v. 17. As then the Priests alone had the power of expiating sins so also to them alone did belong the eating of the Offering Hence follows First That the eating of it was a Priestly act as well as the immolation Secondly That this eating made a part of the Expiation it self or at least was required to the accomplishment of it The Sinner and the Priest who reconciles the Sinner are persons much different and their actions of a very diverse nature In the Old Testament then the Priest eats that which was offered for the sin of another But Jesus Christ hath changed this Ordinance For by an Order quite new and unheard of before he enjoyns even Sinners themselves to eat the flesh offered for their sins So this Right which was onely the Priests is now transported to Sinners themselves And whereas the Priest eat it for to accomplish the expiation of sins now we eat it because the expiation is already made and accomplished This difference is very notable CHAP. IV. That the precedent considerations cannot be accused of Nullity whithout doing injury to the wisdom of the Son of God NOW if any man will affirm that Jesus Christ thought not of all that is above said or doubt whether these antitheses be the end of his words instituting this Sacrament let him again consider if they be not there formerly declared If the blood of the New Covenant which he commands us to drink be not manifestly opposite to that of the Old whereof none eat If the reason wherefore we are enjoyned to drink the one be not the same for which it was forbidden to tast the other If Jesus Christ commanding Sinners to eat the body offered for their transgressions thought not of the Law which forbids them to eat the flesh sacrificed for their sins If he were ignorant that it was an action of the Priests wherein Sinners had no part If he knew not that the Communion of bread and and wine representing his Body and Blood in as much as they were to be offered for Sinners was absolutely forbidden them And finally If he who knew this Law perfectly and represented his Body and Blood by the same Elements which the Law imployed to this effect which is set down in the proper termes of it to express actions unknown unto it hath not seen the consequence thereof nor perceived that it introduced quite new principles apparently contrary to those of the Old Testament nor would observe a difference so visible when he spoke even to men that were Jews and to all future ages who might easily take notice of this Noveltie Certainly forasmuch as he layeth down maximes altogether new which may seem strange unto them he advertiseth them that he makes a New Covenant which abolisheth the first which contains new Clauses which giveth new Rights which takes away the conditions held by the precedent and imposeth others altogether distinct from them And as the changing of the Sacrificing hath shewed that there should be a change of the Law so the draught of the Covenant being changed we ought not to wonder that we see new articles and new orders which answer not to the form and tenor of the first Covenant It is no more to be doubted that such is the sense and the end of the words of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist and those who see it not therein do but half understand it Now the considerations here above produced may it furnish us for what follows CHAP. V. The Freface to the fourth Consideration I Treat not here of Controversie nor touch the famous Dispute of the manner of eating the Flesh of Christ Every one can say that the Holy Ghost often speaks by a Figure and hides a Spiritual sense under the name of corporal things whereupon nevertheless is to be observed as we go that many put Figures into those words whose propriety may subsist even in a most excellent sense The 146. Psalm teacheth that God openeth the eyes of the blinde and maketh strait those that are crooked Some say that he onely speakes of the illumination of the Spirit and of the health of the Soul This is the common place and the wide gate through which they shift who finde themselves brought to a strait in any difficult passage For not being able to get out otherwise they cast themselves on a very easie way saying That all this ought to be understood spiritually All this while they eclipse the true light of divers passages which have no need to be expounded by a figure Such a one is that which I have produced which toucheth two excellent miracles which were reserved to the Son of God in token of his Divinity For before him never did any give sight to the blinde nor make strait the bodies which were crooked Wonders which his Omnipotency hath really accomplished John 9. Luke 13. v. 11 12. Moreover we examine not whence it comes that Jesus Christ speaks so often by similitudes whether because those of the East were accustomed of old to propound their Doctrins under such representations as we may see in many places of the Old Testament Or because the Divine Oracles observing in what style the Messias would express himself to men had foretold that he would open his mouth in Parables Or because he would render himself obscure to unbeleevers envelopping his mysteries and covering them wlth names estranged from the subject Or because heavenly things not having name in the language of the children of men to whom they are naturally unknown it was needful for to make them understood unto them to speak to them in their own terms Or because that supernatural objects do more easily insinuate into the minde and there form more lively impressions being produced under the image of those which are more perceptible to the senses then being nakedly purposed in titles more thin and subtil As for this phrase which is now in agitation there is none but can say after St. Augustin touching the eating of the Body of Christ That those words which seem to command a wickedness ought to be taken in a figure But this is not our question here CHAP. VI. The fourth Consideration upon the words of Jesus Christ in the Supper SOME will demand why Jesus Christ would speak in such a figure employing a speech which seems to denote a wickedness Why is an act so holy so noble expressed by the name of an act the most barbarous and the most unnatural that can be For what is there more holy then the action of the Soul which unites it self to Jesus Christ And what is there more abominable then to eat the flesh of a man and even to drink his very blood Moreover how can a cruelty represent so amiable a Communion And further from whence comes it that our Saviour recommended this Communion would give us a
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
flesh of God we spare Digestion is sublim'd Our inward fire Concocts what Cherubs did and do admire Th' old Childish Jew so long is school'd By th' Law his Pedagogue till fool'd The meerly Morallist still Shrinkes At th' fansie of our horrid Drinkes Yet we keep on our Dyet Our dry Soules Drink their own Healthes in blood from th' hallow'd Bowles WIL. BEAU The Eating of the BODY of CHRIST Considered in its PRINCIPLES The First Sect. CHAP. I. To what the Instruction of Christians is now reduced as concerning the Point of the Supper Of an abuse which is found in many Divines treating of the History of the Passion Of many circumstances of the Passion of which we are ignorant of the particular Causes THere is nothing of Religion this day more studied and peradveuture less understood among the common sort of Orthodox Divines then that of the Eucharist Men learn nothing of it but what reaches to controversie as if all the Doctrin of this Sacrament consisted in that To this very end many labour to inform themselves of nothing but of the belief of the Fathers as if it were belonging to the purpose of the Supper to know the opinion of Tertullian or St Ambrose Let this be spoken without diminishing the praise of those who have so profitably Wrote of this Controversie It is indeed necessary in these times but it is not that which nourishes the Soul A man who receives the holy Supper ought at that time to think of other things then to reason with himself whether accidents may subsist without a Subject whether or no mice can eat the Body of Christ whether Transubstantiation were before the Councel of Verceil or Lateran and other ordinary questions Or to dispute Philosophically upon the words of Concomitance Locally Circumscriptively and such like Tearms Many also studie Tracks of Piety on the Subject of the Supper in the most part of which we may behold much discourse but little matter Or if there be some substance it is but the Rudiments and Alphabet of Christianity amplified with a multitude of words In such sort that after having read a hundred such books which are cryed up among the people we shall finde heaped together much speech but little Doctrin They who greatly esteem them deceive themselves in many respects I must advertise them of one abuse which cannot be dissembled Wee have some Writers who cause Metaphors to pass for Mysteries and allusions of words for very real matters yea for demonstrative Reasons When they treat of the Passion of Christ which is the true Subject of the Holy Supper with its particulars and circumstances behold how they specifie unto us the Causes If they speak of the kissing of Judas they seek the reason from the mouth of Adam who sinned with his lips If there be question of the Reed which was put into the hand of Christ it is say they to shew that he breaks not the bruised Reed If they talk of his Vestments which were divided into four parts they tell us they are the four parts of the World to whom our Lord hath communicated his blessings That he was stripp'd of his Garments is as much as that one day he will restore the Kingdom to God his Father If they discourse of his Purple Robe it is because he wipes away our sins which are as red as Scarlet If he were pierc'd in the Side it is to the end that wee should have him near our heart If he were smoat on the face it is as much as that we have disfigured our face i. e. the Image of God Oh subtill Imaginations Such allegories are tollerable in an Oratoricall Discourse but certainly they are impertinent and abusive when there is question made of teaching exactly This Style instead of framing a distinct and articulated voice produces not hing but a confused and extravagant noise holding the minds of men in a childish ignorance and rendring the most important matters of Religion contemptible and ridiculous Yet nevertheless the ignorant sort finde these Conceits to be very high and take them for very solid Doctrins and currant money It is to be noted that many labour in vain to give a particular reason of all the Circumstances of the death of Christ Certainly many of them have their Causes pointed out by the very finger of God That our Lord was fastned to the wood That he was lifted up That he suffered among thieves That the place of his punishment was without the City That they cast lots upon his Garments That his bones were not broken That his side was pierced That his hands and his feet were boared through That Gall was given him to drink c. All these particularities have their allusion to some Oracle or to some Figure which hath preceded them from whence may be drawn Theologicall demonstrations But as for other Circumstances whereof special reasons are not taught in the Scripture or verified by certain analogie it sufficeth to consider them simply as parts of the humiliation of Christ and carry them up to the general causes of his Passion Otherwise 't is as much as to feed on imaginarie meats CHAP. II. Of an Usual expression among Christians subject to evill Consequences I Have yet this to give advertisement of That in the common language of Christians there is a form of speech touching this matter of the Supper in which we ought to use no little caution As for example We say ordinarily The Altar of the Cross The Cross is the Altar say we on which Christ was sacrificed This phrase is authorized by the pen of many excellent Authors But we must know that their end hath been to apply themselves to the Vulgar For they are not ignorant that to speak properly the Cross was not the Altar of the Sacrifice of Christ Otherwise this speech would be dangerous for those that know not its importance And if we should dispute against a Jew he would force us to disavow it It is a Rule of Divine Right Exod. 29. 37. Mat. 23. 18 19. That the Altar is more excellent then the Offering The reason is because the Offering is sanctified by the Altar Whereupon we ought to observe that the ancient Fathers giving the name of Altar to the Table of the Lord shew that they mean not there to sacrifice the Body of Jesus Christ for the expiation of sins For an Altar of wood or stone doth not sanctifie the Body of our Lord. Therefore they so call the holy Table but not in a sense that doth in any wise favour Transubstantiation or the dependances thereon Finally it is true that Jesus Christ was offered on the Cross but it is false that it was held for an Altar in the act of this venerable Sacrifice For 1. This wood on which Jesus Christ suffered did it sanctifie the Offering of his Body Was the Cross more excellent or more holy then the Sacred body of the Sonne of God 2. Add to this that the
They who Analise such passages simply according to their Logick give them a constrained and often a ridiculous sense This stile hath transcendant prerogatives which we ought to understand that we may know the method of the Son of God which otherwise will seem irregular There you finde also similitudes which at the first sight seem rude and monstrous as when the coming of the Lord is compared to that of a thief in the night 1 Thes 5. and in other places In such comparisons we are wont to say that a comparison should never be pressed to the utmost For to things alike in one regard are unlike in another But this caution alone will not content the minde For there hath been alwaies whereat to wonder that two subjects should be compared and put together and the one invested with the name of the other between which indeed there is some conformity yet on the other part there should be so great and so visible a repugnance of qualities that it renders the comparison enormous In this then there is a secret which is not alwaies perceivable In the language of God the more a phrase is estranged from our rules the more it is mysterious That whereof the question is here is one of the most strange in all the Scripture But if instead of be holding onely the superficies we put it in the ballance its weight will make it known for gold of Ophir CHAP. XII The clearing of the fourth Consideration VVHEN mention is made of Eating the Body of Christ that speech is not simply drawn from the resemblance which there may be between Eating and Communicating and ought not to be put into the rank of simple similitudes This phrase is of a higher derivation The intention of our Saviour was to revoke a clause of the Old Testament which was this that a man should not eat the flesh and blood offered for the remission of his sins We have seen the sense and importance of it Jesus Christ would shew that he gives us that which the Law refused us It was therefore necessary that he should express it in the same termes that is to say that he should speak to us of eating the flesh offered for our sins And that he hath done not onely in words retaining the proper termes of the Testament but also by the exhibition of a nourishment whose sensible eating is an expression of this other We ought then to know that this word of Eating denoting the communion of the sacrifice is not simply used because there is a resemblance between the two acts but forasmuch as in the Law this communion is called Eating So Jesus Christ hath not introduced this word for a simple Metaphor or comparison but hath pronounced it as a terme of a Testamentary clause whose repetition was here necessary for the cause abovesaid For this terme being already in the first Testament to express this Communion must be retained in the second It Bootes not to say that the name of Eating which denotes an act of the mouth and of the teeth upon the flesh of Legal offerings is not convenient to the Communion of a humane body as is that of Christs and that the comparison of it is rude For to understand this terme we must take the entire sense which extends it self a great deal farther then a simple comparison In the institution of the Supper this Communion is not simply qualifed Eating of a Body given for Food but of a body given for the attonement of our sins Now this speech means that the Communion of the Body of Christ which we know to be spiritual is in effect what the eating of expiatory Sacrifice was in figure Moreover that the body of Christ having succeeded Sacrifices the Communion of this Body hath taken the place of eating of Sacrifices This title then belongs to it not by simple resemblance but if I may so say both by succession and in the same sort that Jesus Christ is called Passover and Lamb the truth taking the name of the Figure As for the words of Jesus Christ in the sixth Capter of Saint John although they have reference to those of the Holy Supper nevertheless their interpretation requires particular considerations which I omit forasmuch as I treat of nothing here but what our Saviour said in the Eucharist Nevertheless we may observe as we goe that the Communion of the body of Christ is there called Eating not by a simple similitude but is as much as to say that this Communion is in effect and in substance that which the eating of the Manna was in shadow and similitude For the Jews had objected this eating of the Manna Finally for to measure this phrase in all its dimensions it is not enough there to consider the analogy between the eating with the mouth and the Communicating in spirit For this resemblance is not the onely cause of this expression nor the onely point we ought to draw to in conclusion Moreover our Lord would shew that a spiritual life hath principles much different from a life animal Both have this common to them that their subsistance depends on the union of man with some other subject which we call aliment But in the life natural man hath no proper aliments which are not of a kinde inferiour to his own such are plants and their fruits such is the flesh of bruit beasts which we lodg in our intrales mingling their blood with ours and uniting thâ—m to our own substance Man is constrained to incorporate into himself these vile things and which are much below him On the contrary in a spiritual life he unites himself to a subject infinitely more excellent then himself to wit to the Eternal Spirit for it is the Spirit which quickens Now this Spirit Communicates himself unto us in the Flesh of Christ So that his Flesh is unto us Meat indeed In which is seen this diversity That in the Life Natural man and his food ought to be of different kindes But in the Life Spiritual man and his food ought to be of one and the same kinde Therefore it is that our Saviour expresseth the Communion of his Body by the name of this act contrary to Nature which is to eat the flesh of man for to signifie that a Spiritual Life is maintained by a means quite contrary to that which Nature employs in an Animal Life For to Eat the flesh of the Son of man signifies not onely to have Communicated with him but signifies also that this Communion is not according to the Laws of Nature And the words of the Son of God bear not onely a similitude of qualities but also note an opposition of kinde between the food of the Body and the nourishment of the Spirit All this abovesaid being duely considered we shall finde that this phrase which seemed so strange could not be more pregnant more compleat nor more convenicent for the subject CHAP. XIII The fift Consideration upon the words of
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